Background Check Forms - City Of Lincoln & Lancaster County: Fill & Download for Free

There is no single definition, and it depends to some extent on who is doing the assessing for what purpose, but since “Upper Class” is a sociological construct, it would generally be the result of combining five factors, in roughly the following order of importance: pedigree, behavior, money, charitable contributions, and power.The only one that can stand by itself is Pedigree. Which means that virtually anyone named Vanderbilt, Astor, Rockefeller, Montague, Schermerhorn, et al would automatically be considered Upper Class in NYC, even if they had no money or power, and even if they did something embarrassing. The same with royalty, no matter how minor and no matter how irrelevant the home country. At the other end of the spectrum, while being an obvious non-WASP is not necessarily prohibitive, unless one’s name happens to be Rothschild or bin Talal, it may prevent one from ever being considered at the very top of the class.Behavior relates to the way one acts and thinks of oneself. The Upper Class in New York tend to be extremely reticent and subdued, with the absolute extent of their “notoriety” being their appearance in the society pages of glossy magazines and sometimes the tabloids. Because other people’s reactions tend to be heavily dependent on one’s behavior, it is absolutely possible for a person from humble origins to rise near or into the Upper Class simply by behaving in ways typical of the Upper Class, and associating with the Upper Class in their clubs, events and activities. But taking this route generally requires at least a bit of the other components: a WASP surname would be additive, while a highly ethnic one would not; not making any charitable contributions to Upper Class causes would be a stopper, as would be never picking up a check, etc. But the reason this one is so important is that the absence of appropriate behavior is effectively a complete block to entry. Because of that, our current head of state would never, ever be considered Upper Class by anyone in NYC, despite having significant money and ultimate power.Money (which in New York means a lot of money, namely in the billions—or at least hundreds of millions) helps to move one up the class vector, but is dependent to a large extent on being accompanied by appropriate behavior, and to a lesser extent on the source of the money. While ‘traditional’ Upper Class economic backgrounds (banking, finance, investments, large industry) are perfectly fine, and ‘newer’ sources such as real estate and tech are acceptable, money from ‘dirty’ or unknown sources (including industries perceived as less classy, or activities rumored to be illegal) would typically give other Upper Class members a reason to look askance.Charitable contributions have always been the traditional route to social acceptance, with the larger and more prominent the contribution and the beneficiary institution, the easier the passage into the Upper Class. So while people like Barry Diller and the Koch Brothers were already well-respected in New York, their large, visible contributions to things like Lincoln Center and the Metropolitan Museum of Art cemented their Upper Class status. Conversely, when Upper Class mainstay Alberto Vilar began defaulting on $150 million in pledges to arts institutions (and eventually sent to prison), he was summarily ejected from The Club. That said, one doesn't need to donate billions. Even relatively small, board-level contributions (in the tens to hundreds of thousands) can check this box, especially if they come along with naming rights to something.Finally, Power can certainly contribute to one’s social ascent, but it is far from the most important factor (see “behavior” above.) There are many people whose power derives from things like notoriety (Kardashian), media (O’Reilly), labor (Hoffa), etc., where power would have no bearing on class, but for others, their suasion, office or voice can quickly elevate them to the upper social ranks, such as celebrated authors, institution presidents, or behind-the-scenes political players. But in all these cases, the power is primarily an amplifier of the class status derived from the other four.For a historical discussion of New York City’s Upper Class, you might be interested in reading In Pursuit of Privilege: A History of New York City's Upper Class and the Making of a Metropolis, by Clifton Hood.

Rents will be much more expensive. In Chicago you can live downtown in a studio or 1 BD for less than 1,500/month, fairly new appliances and good location. In SF downtown that will be closer to 2,800–3200/month. Many chi young professionals tend to have their own place, whereas people in SF even in their 30’s tend to have roomies or move in with the person they are dating. Check craigslist to get an idea.Housing will be much more expensive. In Chicago you can get a nice high rise spot with 2BD or even a 3BD townhouse for 350–500K. In SF downtown for a studio or 1 BD it may be closer to 600–800K. Over 1 mil for a 2BD or house, this even applies to surrounding areas of SF (Eastbay across the bridge — Oakland, Fremont, Southbay - Santa Clara, San Jose, Peninsula - San Mateo, South SF). Check realtor.com.Other things are more pricey. Things like eating out for lunch, going out for a drink, utilities, parking, transportation costs, taxes, etc. Crossing the bridge everyday into SF from East Bay is $5/day. Something to consider if you need to drive in everyday for work. Bart can range from $3-$6 one way, depending on where you are coming from. Whereas Chicago CTA is $2.25 one way, no matter the distance.SF is more spread out. In Chicago — all the working professionals tend to work and live around downtown — all my friends and coworkers were in a pretty small radius. We lived in places like Loop, River north, Lakeview, Lincoln park, all a short cab ride, subway ride, or bus ride away. In SF, both people and jobs were all over the place. People would live in SF downtown, then take the tech buses to Facebook and Apple via the buses commuting 1–1.5 hour each way. People live and work all over the Bay, which can make it a challenge to plan up times to meet — people working and living in Walnut Creek to Santa Clara to Inner Richmond to Marin. There were more people with super commutes too— 1.5–2 hours each way. Coming from Gilroy, Hercules, Santa Rosa, etc.Milder Weather. SF downtown has a few warm weeks of a mild summer, but for the most part it ranges from fall weather to a mild winter. If you want hotter weather you can go to East bay or South bay. Chicago can be cold for several months of the year with snow, and be very humid and hot during summer.Larger Asian population. During the gold rush many Chinese immigrants came over for work, and stayed here after it ended, resulting in a large Chinese population. I believe I heard over 25% is Asian American. Chicago felt more predominately white/European with less Asians.Larger startup scene. Many people work in those tech firms like FB, google, square, twitter, zynga, etc. With titles like growth marketer, product manager, developer, full stack engineer, digital marketer, etc. Chicagoans tend to have more traditional jobs — finance, business, law, medicine, etc with some music and arts mixed in. This also shows based on what people are wearing on their way to work. SF people in jeans with a tee with their company logo, chicago people are more likely to be in suits or dress slacks and a dress shirt.Skews more liberal. Non monogamous relationships, marrying later or not at all, cohabitation, non binary, more democratic, folsom street fairs, naked biking, etc. Chicago feels like a big small town to me. More on traditional side in terms of lifestyles and views.Bit more grimy. Just smelly, lots of trash on the streets, pockets of homeless even in the more expensive parts of town like financial district on the way to work, parts of SOMA, the area where tenderloin borders union square. Sometimes you’d find poo on the streets — human or dog. Chicago felt very clean. Didn’t worry so much about where I was stepping. No tent cities of homeless going for large stretches of road.Better road trip options. In Chicago really the only place I remember driving to is Wisconsin. In SF you got lake Tahoe and Reno to the north, Yosemite to the east, Napa and the redwood forest an hour away, highway 1 down to San Luis Obispo, LA if you don’t mind doing a further drive. There’s tons of hiking, bike trails, and even a few caves.Dating scene favors girls. I felt as a girl you have more options in the Bay Area, there are literally more men. But Chicago isn’t a bad place to be either. I think it’s much more common to see people in their mid 30’s in SF still single and living the life. Whereas Chicago that would be more rare.Lot of ambition. The number of people I met who is doing a startup, or trying to be a yoga teacher on the side. The number of people I met who have run a marathon. The numerous coding bootcamps, UX immersive programs, product bootcamps. The number of personal counselors, couples counselors, financial counselors, career counselors you can find with a quick yelp search. The amount of tech meetups on any given night, topics ranging from the gameficiation of fitbit, to the future of bitcoin. Talks hosted by people from airbnb and game nights at salesforce. It is pretty apparent people are always striving to be better, and do more. This either will inspire you, or may make you feel like you are not doing enough. Or maybe it will be background noise, and not affect you at all. But if you want to find the resources and support network to do more, you can probably find it.Work scene feels a little more relaxed. If I was on gchat, texting, or browsing news too long at work in Chicago, I would definitely hear something from my boss. Whereas in SF I felt it was more casual. As long as I got my work done, it was fine. I would sometimes have long stretches of hours where I didn’t do much. I know people who work from home and only come in a few days a week. Or leave earlier on slower days. As long as you’re productive you don’t have to be staring at work related stuff for every minute you are at work.People. Lot of people in SF are not originally from here, although one could argue many people from Chicago came from bordering states like Nebraska and Michigan. People from SF come from all over the world. There is a culture of flakiness in SF that is accepted, cancelling plans last minute, etc, maybe because it is more laid back or the norm. Also with their busy schedules of traveling the world (larger disposable income), trying to get their side project off the ground, or working longer hours at a FB or Apple, they may have less free time to meetup. Whereas Chicagoans I feel are more likely to keep plans, they have more time to just hang out and chill after their 9 to 5 shift is done. SF people are friendly but for me personally I felt it took more effort to make really good friends. Whereas Chicagoans were over the top nice, going out of their way to do things for others, less guarded. (On the flip side I’ve heard Cali people are less in your biz, whereas Chicago people are more interested in what’s going on in your life and ask a lot of questions, which some people may misconstrue as nosy. A coworker who moved to Chicago mentioned how much it bothered him, as he likes to keep to himself.) Chicagoans have that small town feeling about them, and that mentality and kindness is more the norm than the exception, which in turn makes other people the same.Despite many of the cool things about SF, Chicago will always have a place in my heart.

Let’s start with the ones that don’t stand a chance.George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and even Ulysses S. Grant are all automatically disqualified from any possibility of winning for one reason; they all owned people at one point in their lives. Founding our country and creating the greatest form of government in human history isn’t going to mean a thing to a horde of severely irate college students with free time. Jackson would last five minutes in a modern campaign before he murdered some poor Berkeley undergrad or a Huffington Post writer. Grant would have the best chance of getting around the slavery issue, but given the political climate this year, I would say he has about as much potential as Chris Christie. Woodrow Wilson is out as well because even though he has been dead for almost a century, just having his name on a building is enough to draw out protesters.John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams are probably two of the most intelligent men to ever serve as president, so there’s no way they get elected. Being a northeastern intellectual was looked down on in their time, and if anything it’s gotten worse.Millard Fillmore has a stupid name and the best marketing teams in the world would never be able to get around that. The same goes for Grover Cleveland. Grover is bad enough, but even though they finally won something, Cleveland is still synonymous with “loser.”This next one hurts. No Abraham Lincoln. In this brave new world in which we live, there’s no way the American public elects someone with a face that causes total strangers to approach him and say, “Are you OK?” William Howard Taft is out for similar reasons. Like Grant, he can be compared to Chris Christie, but in a more roundabout way. Really, really round.The last two in the “No Way in Hell Group” are also a bit painful, but I have to include Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt was one of the greatest presidents in our history, yet to this day, his name is met with scorn by hardcore right-wingers. Above every other president, FDR is most associated with that particular word that has come to be spoken with such hate and revulsion: liberal. (Shudders) Obama suffers from the same issue, as being liberal (Shudders) became especially revolting during his tenure as president. Of course, this wasn’t necessarily his fault. He just had the misfortune of presidenting while black, so whatever he advocated was automatically going to become blasphemy to the jackass demographic.Next, let’s discuss some genuine “maybes.”Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison would be solid party hacks content to wallow in government corruption. These men could easily find a way to passionately defend Citizens United on national television if you paid them enough.Warren Harding, Gerald Ford, and George W Bush are lovable idiots whom people would want to have a beer with. The fact that it would take the three of them at least a month to construct the sentence necessary to order a beer would be ignored, and any one of them could stumble into the presidency, whether they actually won it or not.James Buchanan was likely a closeted homosexual who could embrace his true self in an era with far less restrictions. His candidacy would be seen as revolutionary and draw a great deal of positive support before everyone realized he was absolutely useless as both a politician and a human being.Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter are the nice guys on the list. They would get some Bernie Sanders-esque attention and make a solid run in the primary and end up with the same result as Bernie. There’s a reason people say nice guys finish last.There’s a handful of bland types that appeal to those who enjoy their boring being as boring as possible. Here you find Calvin Coolidge and Franklin Pierce disappearing into the background before your very eyes with their sheer blandness. Think John Kasich.The ContendersThe military industrial complex would absolutely burst at the thought of William McKinley as president. Money would flow into his campaign like rounds through a belt fed M2 Browning. Unfortunately, I’m guessing McKinley would turn into a bit of a recluse as his last public outing didn’t end very well for him. It’s easy to see him becoming pretty jittery and diving to the floor at every loud noise. He would also be pretty sad about losing his mountain.Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were world movers in their time that would find it too difficult to hide their disgust with modern society. Five minutes on Twitter would send these two into seclusion.George HW Bush may have been just shy of useless as a president, but he knows everyone. If he made two phone calls, he could have Trump dropped as nominee and his own name put on the ticket. This man used to vomit on foreign leaders to assert dominance; he is not to be underestimated.Lyndon Johnson was another man who liked to assert dominance over those around him. If you want to know how, just google “Lyndon Johnson Jumbo.”In a similar vein, Bill Clinton had some internal issues while in the Oval Office, but he has proven that he can hold up under pressure. After enduring a firestorm of criticism about his morals from serial adulterers, child molesters, and rape enablers, as well as a 41 year marriage to what has to be one of the scariest women on the planet, nothing is going to shake this man.The JuggernautsKennedy…(swoon) With the type of looks that guaranteed him high office so long as he didn’t drool on himself while speaking, JFK would definitely be on the shortlist of favorites for 2016. Just keep him away from Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lawrence, and Kate Upton, otherwise he’ll nosedive faster than John Edwards.I honestly believe that at least a handful of key Republican officials seriously considered the idea of digging up Ronald Reagan and entering his decaying corpse into the Republican primaries this year. I guarantee a corpse would have polled higher than Ted Cruz in most states, let alone the corpse of Reagan. With that in mind, a spry, youthful, 70 year old Reagan could easily carry every red state by a wide margin. We would just have to keep reminding him what his name is and make sure he knows that pumping crack cocaine into inner cities isn’t kosher anymore.While we’re on the subject of Republican boogeymen that liberal parents tell stories about to scare their children, there is one who would be a perfect fit in the data mining, government spying, slimeball political world in which we currently find ourselves. A man far ahead of his time, Richard Nixon recorded people before it was cool. Put Nixon in an era where the military has become a sacred cow, and there would be no stopping him.The WinnerCan you name the U.S. President that has appeared in the most internet memes in the last five years? Me neither, but I’m guessing it’s Teddy Roosevelt. He’s more popular now than he was as president, and that’s actually quite an achievement. Thanks to a wave of best-selling books, poorly researched stories on click-driven websites, and photoshopped moose riding escapades, Roosevelt remains a hot commodity. TR can play the diplomat or the killer depending on the occasion, and he has demonstrated a remarkable indifference to being shot. With bullets. In the chest. In an era defined by chicken hawks screaming for war and delicate youths seeking out “safe spaces,” I believe that a man who took one in the chest but still decided to finish his speech would represent true leadership for all sides.If you enjoyed this answer, or if you just want another location to leave a hateful comment, check this out:Josh Boyd's answer to What are the TL;DR of each American president's vision of foreign policy?