What’s New With This Story:
–Miami Shores Police are searching for three suspects who they say broke into at least two homes on Thanksgiving Day.
-According to LOCAL 10, one of the burglars punched a 13 year old boy in the face while his 11 year old sister looked on.
-A Miami Shores resident named Brett Firestone foiled the robbery at one house when he confronted the men. He told LOCAL 10, that they then drove away down NE 107th St at over 100 miles per hour.
–The alleged robberies took place at a home near NE 107th St and NE 10th Place and at a home on NW 100th Terrace.
Here’s the official advisory from MSPD:
Here’s LOCAL 10’s report on it:
RISE NEWS is South Florida’s digital news magazine. Follow us on Facebook to make sure you never miss a story!
Have a news tip about this topic or something completely different? Send it on in to email@example.com.
What Do You Think?
You Might also like
By Thomas Seibold
In his bestselling new book Hillbilly Elegy, author J.D. Vance paints a vivid picture of the Appalachian culture he grew up in, including its attitudes toward earning and spending. While recounting an unpredictable childhood marked by broken marriages, violence, and addictions among the adults who were supposed to be caring for him, he singles out the custom of free-spending, debt-incurring Christmas shopping as one of his community’s least-defensible traditions.
Sporadic employment and reliance on anticipated income-tax refunds that didn’t always come through tinged the year-end shopping spree with a distinct sense of anxiety.
Unfortunately, the desire for a “nice Christmas” defined by the price, size, and status of gifts piled beneath the tree is not limited to those in Appalachia who can least afford it. It is part of the American psyche from coast to coast.
Gallup’s annual survey on gift-giving in the US, released on October 17, says that American adults each plan to spend an average of $785 on gifts this Christmas season.
Gallup says, “This is consistent with the range in October spending estimates since 2013,” though “still not as high as the $900 averages recorded just prior to the recession.”
And that’s just the average. Fully 31% of survey takers said they’d be spending $1000 or more per person, while 23% plan to shell out $500 – $999.
Can we afford this? A May 2016 story reporting on a poll conducted by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that “Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency.” Surprisingly, this lack of savings covers all income levels!
Even among “the country’s wealthiest 20 percent — households making more than $100,000 a year — 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000.”
Perhaps Christmas should be renamed “Creditmas.”
After all, a survey by Magnify Money found that Christmas in 2015 added an average of $986 (most of it on credit cards) to the debt of American households with holiday debt.
Our Christmas-celebrating family has always found the annual surveys on Christmas spending surprising and puzzling.
While we look like middle-class suburbanites with a house, cars, lawnmower, white-collar jobs, and two kids, we’ve come to realize that we apparently don’t financially observe the holidays like most Americans.
Christmas for us has never been a flurry of credit-driven gift-buying, elaborate preparations, or guilt-laden obligations.
And yet it has always been a season of magic, anticipation, togetherness, and enough toys to make Christmas eve and morning a typical scene of surprise, delight, and amusement for our kids.
The first principle of Christmas spending in our home is that it’s about making the holiday a source of anticipation and enjoyment for the little people in the house–not a chance for the adults to splurge on things they wouldn’t normally buy.
The conversation that includes “My husband asked me to buy him a . . .” or “She said this year I had to get her a . . .” in reference to big-ticket spouse-directed purchases has never been spoken with our friends, because we don’t view Christmas-time spending as a chance to fast-track the purchase of overpriced baubles that our normal spending standards wouldn’t permit at other times of the year. While we work together to determine and agree on large purchases as our respective needs and wants arise throughout the year, we view Christmas a time for extra restraint–not the moment to throw off our usual financial inhibitions.
The second idea that permeates our Christmas spending is not following toy fads! From what we’ve seen, it’s the adults more than the kids who get worked up over the “hot” gift of the year, whether it’s a new gadget for themselves or some TV or movie character-of-the-moment licensed product for the kids.
In fact, J.D. Vance references just this tendency in Hillbilly Elegy, recalling how his mother ran all over town trying to find the then-hot “Teddy Ruxpin” talking bear that was sold out in stores, ultimately prompting her to buy one from a toy scalper at a substantial markup.
Finding the worn-out bear in his childhood home years later, Vance laments the effort and expense his mother went to since he was just a toddler, too young to even realize or care what kind of toy he got.
Third, our family buys Christmas gifts all year long for a fraction of what they cost new! For my wife, that meant regular trips to thrift stores in our affluent county, where the cast-offs of those who buy everything new ends up, often barely worn and sometimes with the tags still on.
For example, our daughter liked miniatures more than Disney princesses or fashion dolls, and Sheri spent years methodically gathering and re-gifting like-new “Polly Pockets” sets that were a recurring highlight of our girl’s lower-grades Christmases.
Occasionally, there would be missing pieces, but pooled together the sets gave her plenty of “play value,” and as a working professional she now jokes that the one Polly Pocket figure missing its legs gave her an early acceptance of those with physical handicaps.
Does such a Christmas sound sparse, sad, or “poor?” It was not. Our tree was piled with a combination of thoughtful pre-owned gifts and typically less than $100 in new items from local or online stores (an amount putting us, by Gallup’s estimate, in a group representing 3% of the population).
For several years my corporate employer gave each employee a hundred-dollar Amazon credit, and it was a joy for each family member to pick around $25 worth of brand-new books or toys to be wrapped in vintage wrapping paper (also obtained from thrift stores and estate sales at a fraction of the new, seasonal price).
Our kids never looked, or felt, or played, deprived. In fact, at the end of Christmas day, when the boxes and wrapping paper got thrown away, our kids’ annual “haul” looked pretty much like every other kid’s in middle-class America.
And they were no less delighted with their little treasures than children whose parents each spent $785.
Of course, striving to live below such “normal” averages is a year-round endeavor, one that paid long-term dividends as we saved for college and worked to pay off the mortgage early.
No, we never measured Christmas by the number or size or momentary hotness of our gifts.
Instead, we made the Christmas season a time for putting up treasured holiday decor, raising sparkling lights in the darkness, playing music, baking cookies, reading Christmas stories, watching Christmas movies, and going sledding and skating together.
For as every child knows, the anticipation of Christmas is a sweet and enduring gift of its own.
To many modern Americans, anything less than a full-fledged holiday spending spree sounds like the pioneers in wagons, the Waltons, or “Little House on the Prairie.”
Yet this was, and still is, our sort of suburban-Amish “normal” for Christmas, one whose traditions and memories remain full of delight and family pride.
In fact, the greatest tribute and reward for our “bottom three-percenter” way of spending at Christmas is seeing our college-educated, professionally employed daughter, and her husband, adopting such spending habits and Christmas traditions for their own new home.
No gift is better than seeing how “below-average” they really are–giving thoughtfully and wisely without waking up with a financial hangover in January.
Tom Seibold is author of The 12 Joys of Christmas, a book for children illustrated by his wife, artist Sheri McCulley Seibold.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Eden, Janine and Jim/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 258
What Do You Think?
By Nick Hickman
Los Angeles, the home of Hollywood, Universal Studios and Chaz Bono, now has its own professional football team once again.
A vote last week among NFL owners rendered the final nail in the coffin for St. Louis fans; their Rams will relocate to Los Angeles for the immediate 2016 season.
For owner Stan Kroenke, the 30-2 decision serves as a victory to return his team to their previous home. It’s been 21 years since the Rams played their last game in Los Angeles, in which time Kroenke has repeatedly criticized the economic and fan support put forward by St. Louis and will now cough up $550 million in order to leave the city.
Waiting for him, however, is one of the largest entertainment markets in the country and enticing plans for an alluring new $1.8 billion dollar stadium located in Inglewood, 10 miles from downtown L.A. Until the completion of the stadium in 2019, the Rams will make their home in the L.A. Coliseum.
The narrative is thrilling and nostalgic for former Los Angeles Rams fans—who claimed the team for the majority of its existence—but is far more somber for St. Louis fans, victims of yet another NFL team to jumped ship on the city.
In 1988, the St. Louis Cardinals (yes there was an NFL team called that too) left and relocated in Arizona. Now, despite the city’s proposal for a new $1.1 billion dollar stadium along the Mississippi River, St. Louis fans are left in the same position as they were almost thirty-years ago.
The city has long been at odds with Kroenke and the NFL. Last Wednesday, Mayor Francis Slay spoke out saying, “At this point I’m so frustrated and disappointed with the NFL.”
Slay went on to call the league “dishonest” and added that he has no desires to re-involve himself with the NFL.
Kroenke’s feud with the city and its fans has continued despite the team’s departure. In an interview with the LA Times Kroenke stated that he wasn’t going to, “sit there and be a victim.”
However the move is not unlike many before it, leaving fans and taxpayers as the true victims.
The city and county will be forced to pay off bonds used to fund the stadium until 2021, but will do so without a team to cheer for. Instead, they’re left only with the memory of four winning seasons and one Super Bowl in the team’s tenure in St. Louis.
Fans in San Diego and Oakland may have reason to fear the same fate. Although the state of California will undoubtedly welcome its fourth NFL franchise in the near future, Commissioner Roger Goodell also gave the San Diego Chargers the option to jointly join the Rams in L.A.
The team has one year to accept the offer, which would then be passed to the Raiders should San Diego decline. Both teams were additionally granted a $100 million dollar incentive to build new stadiums in their current locations.
Only the coming months however, will prove whether or not the incentive money is enough to draw owner’s eyes away from the glamorous Los Angeles market. The league is about dollars and cents, and they will do anything to further their product.
The near future will also indicate whether the Rams’ move is a good one. Los Angeles undeniably offers economic opportunities, but it also carries its fair share of baggage. The results had in St. Louis will far from satisfy Los Angeles fans who have been spoiled over the years with the success of teams like the Lakers and Kings.
The fans, after all, they are the true life-blood of the league (whether they be in the seats or on the couch).
It’s time now for Stan Kroenke to deliver his new fans with a product that will succeed beyond the balance sheet.
Cover Photo Credit: Emmanuel_D Photography/Flickr (CC by 2.0).Post Views: 173
What Do You Think?
By James Kardys
Back in May, I posted an article here on RISE NEWS discussing whether or nor Bernie Sanders could spoil the election for Hillary Clinton.
But things have changed from May to now.
In the May article, I stated the following:
“According to a poll jointly conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News that was published on Tuesday, 31% of Sanders supporters say they may not or will not support Clinton in the general election. 64.5% of that 31% (or 20% of all Sanders supporters) say that they will vote for Trump.
When you take into account that 43.4% of all Democrats support Sanders (according to the latest RealClearPolitics average), this translates into 13.5% of all Democrats refusing to vote for Clinton, and 8.7% of all Democrats voting for Trump.
And remember, this poll was taken before the convention, whose outcome is now going to be determined by superdelegates, because of how close the race has been.”
The above information was posted prior to a series of developments that have since taken place, and are likely to make Clinton’s problems with Sanders supporters worse, despite the fact that all the primaries are finished and Sanders is reportedly expected to endorse Clinton prior to the convention despite being within range of clinching the nomination through superdelegates.
There are three developments in particular that stand out for me.
The first is the leak of a memo from the servers of the Democratic National Committee by a hacker called “Gufficer 2.0,” which points to the idea that the DNC had been secretly backing Clinton all along, as Sanders has previously claimed.
Since this leak took place, Clinton’s standing among Sanders supporters have only worsened.
As of June 22, the percentage of Sanders supporters that may not or will not support Clinton has shot up from 31% to 45%. 48.9% of that 45% (or 22% of all Sanders supporters) say that they will vote for Donald Trump.
40% of that 45% (or 18% of all Sanders supporters) say that they will vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.
When you take into account that 41.4% of all Democrats support Sanders (according to the latest RealClearPolitics average), this translates into 18.6% of all Democrats refusing to vote for Clinton, 9.1% of all Democrats voting for Trump, and 7.5% of all Democrats voting for Johnson.
The second development is the recent decisions by the FBI and the Department of Justice to not indict Hillary Clinton over her alleged mishandling of government emails while serving as Secretary of State.
Given that the announcements were made just after former President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, accusations of a rigged system have increased.
Notable and influential Sanders supporters such as Rosario Dawson, Shaun King, and Mark Ruffalo have openly denounced the outcome of the FBI’s investigation of Clinton on Twitter, and I have seen friends of mine do the same on social media.
This development actually took place after the most recent poll on Sanders supporters was released, so expect the percentage of supporters who are disillusioned to go up further.
The third development is the alleged report that presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein is considering allowing Sanders to take her place and continuing his run after the Democratic National Convention.
Although it is not yet known how much such a move (Sanders still hasn’t endorsed Clinton yet, so anything can still happen until he does) would affect Clinton’s presidential chances, it would be wise for Clinton to make sure she doesn’t find out, especially given other recent events.
At the end of my May article, I stated that an opportunity awaits for both Clinton and Trump to make something out of a scenario that could make or break them. I reaffirm that belief, and say that it is now more apparent than ever.
If you are politically active, I suggest that you work to make sure the best is made out of this situation for your candidate.
After all, good candidates listen to their bases!
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Phil Roeder/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 206
What Do You Think?