Blogcritics Comments on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Comment by Lore on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:09:40 EDT

I believe that everyone has the right to a good education. One of the problems I have is that we will spend hard earned money to provide an education to the inmates, but we will cut support for our students who are struggling to get grants, loans, work study, and just plan struggling to make it. A Harvard education is the reach of every student, they give more scholarships to low income, first generation learners than most schools of their caliber. I say lets investigate this issue and give our students who have not broken the law just as many opportunities and breaks as our inmates. I do feel that our inmates need education as well, but lets be more reasonable and realistic about the results for offenders and repeat offenders. THanks.

Comment by Howard Bowen on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:59:46 EST

Until the 1960's, a girl who became pregnant in High School was expelled. Now they use birth control or abort the fetus. A man cannot afford to maintain a wife and family since the 1960's. Now, a wife must be gainfully employed in almost all situations. More than half of the marriages in America fail. Attaining manhood was once a dream for a boy. Since WWII, getting rich and buying all that money can buy, (including a bevy of females for sex) is a boys pre-programmed dream. The sex act of copulation between a male and a female no longer represents (in the media) anything associated with pregnancy in the USA. The media touts womanhood as the equivalent of manhood, and emphasizes the accomplishment of girlsdom to womandom as the equal of a boy attaining manhood. There are no longer any rights of passage recognized by American culture that honor a boy into manhood. The Holy Bible prophecies the time of "barren wombs", when males will go bald, become fat and the male portion associated with the female will be considered the same area. Males seldom have voices that lower any further that at the time of puberty. African males are now the standard for America. Why do lions roar?

Comment by Baronius on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Tue, 4 Mar 2008 00:12:40 EST

Good grief. Diana, I fear condoms because I don't understand my body. How'd ya guess. Clavos, you're making perfect sense. I don't think this is the right thread for that kind of behaviour, though.

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:28:51 EST

No, I'm not looking for change, at least not the kind of change included in "constitutional rights." I'm simply insisting that the system in this country no longer provides the freedom to simply opt out, as I said originally. "Live and let live" is no longer valued; on the contrary, busybodies, whether of the government or the activist group du jour are making sure that everyone toes the politically correct line of the moment, no matter how personal the issue. Individuality and self reliance, quintessential american qualities in the first century and a half of the country's history, have morphed into a desire for uniformity, acquiescence, and security from the vicissitudes of life with personal responsibility (and along with it, personal freedom) surrendered to the higher power of the secular deity, the government. So you're not looking for change and you have complaints. That's as individual a problem as it gets and it's a problem only self-reliance can address. This very mindset is fast becoming a quintessential American quality – and that's no one's fault but the individual American who thinks that way. Political correctness serves two purposes, neither of which have anything to do with civil liberties or constitutional rights. PC gives those on the left a language they think gets them in with those who are different from themselves, and it gives those on the right a reason to feel put upon and victimized whenever PC language is used. It's very much like a superstition only worse because, ironically, PC effectively shuts down communication I've found "live and let live" everywhere I've been. In big cities, one can get so lost in the crowd one might as well be alone. In the smaller towns, they're not abiding by big city values even when they know what those are. My wanting my country to provide an education and healthcare to everyone who wants it is no imposition on those who don't. Taxes are already being paid and spent on and for the consequences of our having so many (unnecessarily) uneducated and ill citizens. It costs less to educate and inoculate than it does to incarcerate and medicate. Once educated and inoculated, most people are good to go. That would leave us with a minimum in the latter group, whereas now we seem hell-bent on maximizing the same.

Comment by STM on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 03:13:55 EST

I do agree with Diana up to a point. America is certainly stagnating in many ways, and a more even distribution of wealth might be one way to go at it. There are a lot of reasons why, as some astute commentators have said recently, Americans can hold down a fulltime job for 20 years and remain homeless, or why people have to live on tips, or accept that they will only ever receive a second-rate education or second-rate (not even that sometimes) healthcare because they can't afford insurance. The main one here is that a lot of American workers are not protected by arbitrated awards, have very few workplace rights, and earn sh.t money. My view: a government that can spend billions on defence (when a bit less would work just as well, directed into new ideas instead of vast air fleets and naval squadrons with no one to use 'em on) can also redirect some of that money into something that really benefits everyone. That's the sort of work where governments can make a real difference, and bring the living standards of all Americans up to par so that the cycle of poverty that leads to much of this crime Diana is talking about can be broken. Seriously, for how much longer can America consider itself civilised with a minimum wage of around 7 bucks an hour, when there are corporations and individuals pulling in billions and it's the richest country on the planet?? It just doesn't make sense. Share the wealth, just a bit, and give workers more money and better protections in return for higher productivity. Stop making everything in China too, and start manufacturing again in the US. So am I suggesting big-taxing the rich and adding a tax impost to everyone in between, so that the poor pay less or no tax? No, I'm saying tax the mega-rich and the corporations a little bit more. Make them fork out for their tax obligations the same way everyone else has to (many rich people often brag they don't pay taxes and that it's something only "little people" do), without all the rorts and sanctioned loopholes designed to have them paying little or next to nothing. In the wash-up, if it's done fairly, they'll hardly even notice it. *I will put my hand up now to acknowledging that this will be a very unpopular POV among most Americans, but it's the only one I have, I know it works because I live in a great country where it does actually work, and I make no apology for it.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 03:01:56 EST

Do you have a subscription to JSTOR? If not, you won't be able to read any of the research I cite. Not personally, I don't, but the university library across the street from my house does. This particular university also has a highly-respected criminology program, so I imagine I'd be able to track down anything you cared to reference. Believe it or not, the mainstream media generally doesn't provide extensive coverage of academic social science research and its conclusions Believe it or not, RJ, my reading is not restricted to the mainstream media. I don't know where you got that impression.

Comment by Clavos on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 02:59:19 EST

"If you were suggesting she could win, then, to reiterate, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. If you were suggesting she couldn't win, then what are you worried about?" I wasn't suggesting either; I have no idea whether or not she'll win, nor do I care. I was merely illustrating that, in the event she is the president, even the right to "opt out" of having health insurance will disappear. Meh.

Comment by Clavos on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 02:54:31 EST

"So you want things to change but you can't be bothered with exercising your constitutional right to bring about those changes. How impotent." No, I'm not looking for change, at least not the kind of change included in "constitutional rights." I'm simply insisting that the system in this country no longer provides the freedom to simply opt out, as I said originally. "Live and let live" is no longer valued; on the contrary, busybodies, whether of the government or the activist group du jour are making sure that everyone toes the politically correct line of the moment, no matter how personal the issue. Individuality and self reliance, quintessential american qualities in the first century and a half of the country's history, have morphed into a desire for uniformity, acquiescence, and security from the vicissitudes of life with personal responsibility (and along with it, personal freedom) surrendered to the higher power of the secular deity, the government. Pathetic...

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:32:21 EST

I said: Students have to fill out a new FAFSA application every school year. RJ said: [GASP!] Horrors!!! RJ, is it really too much to ask that you concede your assertion of it taking one application to get through college? This was your assertion, and it is incorrect. You mean to tell me that college students have to spend 15 or 30 minutes every year filling out a free financial aid application online that will likely provide them with thousands of dollars in grants and government-subsidized student loans??? Clearly you are the victor on this issue since I must concede it took me about an hour to help each of my children to fill out their FAFSAs - each and every year. That said, I never so much as indicated this was a hardship of any kind. Why, then, the sarcastic dismay? Is it that difficult to stay on topic that one must get bogged down in so many peripheral issues? Because I believe the government should pay for anyone's (citizen) college education that wants one, one application would do it. With attendance comes money. No attendance, no money.

Comment by RJ Elliott on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:21:57 EST

"Students have to fill out a new FAFSA application every school year." [GASP!] Horrors!!! You mean to tell me that college students have to spend 15 or 30 minutes every year filling out a free financial aid application online that will likely provide them with thousands of dollars in grants and government-subsidized student loans??? WE TRULY LIVE UNDER A BRUTAL PLUTOCRACY!

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:20:33 EST

Re: #81 How is it insulting to presume one would raise their child to believe as they believe? In the case of my comment in #55, I asserted the person would raise their child to believe as they believe based on what that person said. That person asserted the premise of deliberately withholding knowledge and information from a child. Doing so would render the child ignorant (read: without knowledge). If the person was asserting that it's okay for him to know how his body works and it is his right to withhold this same information from his child, I would agree it is his right to do so. There is also the possibility the person doesn't know how his body works and is frightened by both his own lack of knowledge and the likelihood of his child discovering this should he attempt to answer the child's questions or unexpectedly express some form of surprise when told by the child what s/he learned in school. If this is the case, the parent could easily escape any further burden by simply asserting his right to withhold information as he sees fit, which in this case is not so much withholding as it is a sheer mask of his own ignorance. Either way, this person's child unknowingly runs the risk of losing in a game of "How screwed up is your life after having unprotected sex?"

Comment by RJ Elliott on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:18:07 EST

"I spotted your link and thought you might have been able to dig up some hard data where I had failed." Do you have a subscription to JSTOR? If not, you won't be able to read any of the research I cite. Believe it or not, the mainstream media generally doesn't provide extensive coverage of academic social science research and its conclusions, particularly when the results seem to back up a pro-crime control (i.e. conservative) philosophy.

Comment by RJ Elliott on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:04:09 EST

Comment #63: "Insult being the last refuge of the defeated" BUT: Comment #55: "It is your right to raise your children as ignorantly as you see fit, presumably in your image." I mean, this stuff just writes itself!

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:02:13 EST

Math, science, proper English, and basic morality? Minor compared to teaching preteens about fisting and how to properly place a condom on a cucumber. You're so far out of context I can't see you anymore. How is Mars?

Comment by RJ Elliott on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:58:40 EST

"I do not reserve the right to teach your children about condoms. It is your right to raise your children as ignorantly as you see fit, presumably in your image." Cute. Math, science, proper English, and basic morality? Minor compared to teaching preteens about fisting and how to properly place a condom on a cucumber.

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:58:01 EST

Since when does "if" mean "when?" As I were. To rephrase with something a little more accommodating: Really, you think she could win? I don't see it. If you were suggesting she could win, then, to reiterate, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. If you were suggesting she couldn't win, then what are you worried about?

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:56:33 EST

I said: under no circumstances will one application pay one's entire way. RJ said: Google "FAFSA" ... Students have to fill out a new FAFSA application every school year. And I take comment #53 to mean you have no response. Understandable. You didn't get the response you wanted. That's not the same as no response.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:54:01 EST

No need to get snitty, RJ. I spotted your link and thought you might have been able to dig up some hard data where I had failed. Oh well.

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:47:50 EST

I shouldn't have to fight to opt out of most the situations I posited; they are (or should be), for the most part, individual, private decisions, but thanks to the increasing trend toward nannyism and autocracy in these Benighted States of America, I increasingly have fewer and fewer individual choices in leading my life the way I want to, without interference from the government. So you want things to change but you can't be bothered with exercising your constitutional right to bring about those changes. How impotent.

Comment by RJ Elliott on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:47:35 EST

"under no circumstances will one application pay one's entire way." Google "FAFSA" ... And I take comment #53 to mean you have no response. Understandable.

Comment by RJ Elliott on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:43:25 EST

"That's it??!!??" Yes. Only one research study ever conducted has found rehabilitative efforts to be essentially useless in deterring recidivism. And my response was clearly an exhaustive review of all the available peer-reviewed research literature. /sarcasm

Comment by Clavos on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:23:50 EST

Once more, I'm NOT speaking of the constitution!!! The government actions I'm objecting to are, for the most part, relatively recently passed laws which, I contend , intrude where the government has no business being; they have nothing whatever to do with the constitution. As for the right to redress grievances in the constitution: the writers correctly foresaw that government will invariably screw up; in fact, they were (when they wrote the document) still smarting themselves from their own inability to have their grievances as colonials addressed (or even recognized) by the crown. What I'm contending is that I am disgusted with the tendency today by the government to intrude into people's affairs at an unprecedented level, and even worse, I'm disgusted at the obvious acquiescence on the part of americans to welcome and even encourage such intrusion. Increasingly, americans are turning responsibility for their lives over to the government. The problem with that is that the more you ask the government to help and watch over you, the more you relinquish the right to lead your life as you please, particularly if you choose to be stupid and not educate your children or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. The right to make mistakes is important, silly as that may sound. Ultimately, the security of the group becomes more important than the rights of the individual, and THAT, I'm sure was never the intent of the writers of the constitution.

Comment by Diana Hartman on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Sun, 2 Mar 2008 23:56:08 EST

I resent the government trying to be my guardian; I don't want or need it, and I don't want to have to fight, or lobby, or vote or make any special effort to keep the goddamn government off my back, but, increasingly, it wants to intrude more and more, in part because so many americans today think the government should have that role. If that's what our forefathers wanted -- government involvement in citizens' lives limited to the extent you express it should be -- then why do you suppose they included the right to redress grievances? It sounds like you'd rather they'd have created a constitution wherein that right would never be necessary. If my interpretation is incorrect, do correct.

Comment by Clavos on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Sun, 2 Mar 2008 23:41:52 EST

I understand you, Doc (and I understood Diana, too). I guess I'm not doing too good a job of expressing myself tonight, because I don't think either of you understand my point. I resent the government trying to be my guardian; I don't want or need it, and I don't want to have to fight, or lobby, or vote or make any special effort to keep the goddamn government off my back, but, increasingly, it wants to intrude more and more, in part because so many americans today think the government should have that role. Sigh...

Comment by Dr Dreadful on More Bang for the Buck: Harvard Costs Less than Prison

Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:36:58 EST

Doc, i'm not making distinctions between legislative and constitutional issues; I'm merely pointing out that the government (all of 'em: federal, state and local) are becoming increasingly intrusive in our day-to-day lives, and we have fewer means of saying "no." Au contraire, I think you/we have exactly the same ways of saying 'no' that we always have. Think of it as a pendulum. All it takes is enough impetus, in the form of public opinion, to push it in the opposite direction, and things will change. These periodic pendulum swings are literally what makes our democracies tick. Sometimes the changes may seem extreme, but things always go back the other way and they tend to balance each other out. To a large degree it's what makes our American and British systems so stable. Bearing in mind the results of the last two presidential elections, I would say that at the moment the pendulum is somewhere in the middle.