For less money, we could be graduating rocket scientists instead of paroling rocks.
Among the many social issues debated around water coolers, across Internet forums, and in the presidential race, whether or not the United States government has an obligation to educate its masses isn’t much of a priority, but government spending (and what it does or does not accomplish) is a hot topic.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baronius
"I believe we have the control to pay for healthcare, proper nutrition in our schools, and education across the board and up the ladder. We don't exercise that control. That's not the same as not having it."
Diana, I've parsed that statement every way I can think of, and unless I'm missing something, it's really dangerous. So let me make sure I've got it straight. Let's say you're in a room with a bear. It doesn't have the authority to rip you apart, but it has the power to do so. Power versus authority. Do you believe that government has unlimited authority and/or unlimited power?
I think that government is suprisingly ineffective at fixing root causes. It has limited power. Government is like a woman putting on makeup. It tries to fix flaws that may or may not be real, and sometimes it works, but 90% of the time it just makes things worse.
More importantly, government has very little authority to do the things you want it to do. Maybe I should have taken a different quote from you to illustrate my point. You ask why can't government support decency. That's not even a slippery slope; there's nothing sloping about it. It's called The Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, and there used to be a ministry by that name under the Taliban government.
27 - Dr Dreadful
Dread, it's not like we've never done studies. We know what steers people toward crime. It's like everything else in human behaviour: there's some heredity, some environmental conditions, and some personal choice. (It's unfair to say that we're dumping money into a criminal justice system without researching the root causes of crime. I'm pretty sure that you know your statement is false.)
All right, I could have phrased that differently. But the question remains: if we know about the causes of crime (and I'm not sure we do - not everything, anyway) why not tackle them? You say that it isn't the place of government to direct culture and morality. Agreed - but law and order is government's responsibility, and prevention is a much-neglected tool. Find some middle ground, at least.
Too many people in this country seem to think throwing more and more criminals into prison for longer and longer spells is the answer to everything. Then they act all surprised when gangs become more sophisticated and start to take over whole areas of the inner cities.
28 - Colin
Jesus H motherfucking crucified Christ on a bike!... kinda what Diana said, but do you not see that collecting criminals together in a big room of criminals produces nothing other than more criminals, with like better skills and such.
29 - Diana Hartman
I said: I believe we have the control to pay for healthcare, proper nutrition in our schools, and education across the board and up the ladder. We don't exercise that control. That's not the same as not having it.
You said: Diana, I've parsed that statement every way I can think of, and unless I'm missing something, it's really dangerous. So let me make sure I've got it straight. Let's say you're in a room with a bear. It doesn't have the authority to rip you apart, but it has the power to do so. Power versus authority. Do you believe that government has unlimited authority and/or unlimited power?
No. It’s not an issue of authority or power. It’s an issue of control " which we the people have. We don’t have control over the weather (Katrina) and we do have control over widespread poverty (those without the means to leave the path of the hurricane [transport them out] and who lost everything, including what food, clothes and shelter they had secured, and the means with which to replace it [replace it]).
No one bothered to mention during or after the looting of New Orleans that there wouldn’t have been nearly as much looting had those in search of food and clothing been transported out before the storm. It wasn't surprising to me when those in search of food and clothing took to looting other things as well, but then I've cracked open a psychology book. (I have no idea what the excuse for not forecasting that kind of destruction could have been from those who are more educated than myself about such things.)
In that situation, those in need -- especially in high numbers -- will get angry and (what appears to the rest of us to be inappropriately) selfish. A human being's hoarding instinct will kick in when one has lost everything. Anger, and other people, easily feed the instinct. When the looter realizes s/he can't carry, much less sell, his/her excess, s/he will tend to become all the more angry and territorial even over property and land that doesn't belong to them. This often turns violent. Again, greater minds than mine had "no idea" that would happen.
I think that government is suprisingly ineffective at fixing root causes. It has limited power. Government is like a woman putting on makeup. It tries to fix flaws that may or may not be real, and sometimes it works, but 90% of the time it just makes things worse.
The government is made up of us, the people - not wildlife. Why this insistence of our having no control, or worse, trying to apply words to it that are not synonyms of it?
You ask why can't government support decency.
No, I don’t.
30 - Colin
Military industrial complex...
31 - Marlon
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Treating it like a right has caused a lot of people a lot of unnecessary pain and anguish.
A college education is also a privilege, not a right and I believe it should remain so. Remember that piece of paper called the constitution? If I’m not mistaken it says we all have the “right” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. It says nothing about catching it, just the right to pursue it.
The government supports people but does not require attendance in finance classes, parenting classes, nutrition courses or vocational/GED/college training.
Required attendance? Sounds a bit like re-education camps to me (and yes I am paranoid). Am I hearing mandatory government intervention from the same woman who screamed so loudly when the “government experts” told you to “medicate your child”? Who had the correct answer to that one? Her mother did, because she knew the child and the “expert” only had a snapshot to base a judgment on.
The government mandating anything has FAIL written all over it. So far as I know, about the only things the government has been successful at include building roads, prisons and raising an army. I REALLY don’t want MORE government in my life.
Dread, thanks for the gloss over
Marlon's assertion that inmates had the same opportunities as everyone else and should pay the penalty for making the wrong choices is simplistic and does nothing to advance the debate.
Prison is a terrible place, it’s supposed to be. If it wasn’t there would be absolutely no reason not to go or return once released. I don’t advocate the Gulag style prisons of the old Soviet Union but I also don’t believe that we should be making prison any more comfortable. At this time prisoners have too much free time on their hands. You want to educate them? Fine, but don’t expect stellar results. The “average” prisoner doesn’t have the “student” mindset in the traditional sense. Sure they will learn a new way to steal a car because it will result in the IMMEDIATE payoff of being a more competent car thief. Spend some time with prisoners (I have) and you will find most of them don’t’ (can’t) think of long term consequences (good or bad). While they are adults, most have the emotional age of 14, they think of INSTANT GRATIFICATION only. Until this changes I don’t see where any amount of “rehabilitation” or “education” is going to amount to more than spitting in the ocean.
32 - Baronius
Diana, I said "We have to support decency - and I don't believe that government spending can do that." You replied "Why can't government spending do that?"
When I said, "You ask why can't government support decency", you replied "No, I don't."
So, do you think that government should support decency or not?
33 - Baronius
"Why this insistence of our having no control, or worse, trying to apply words to it that are not synonyms of it?"
Because I don't always understand what you're saying. I'm trying to come at this any way I can.
34 - Diana Hartman
So, do you think that government should support decency or not?
I do think government should support decency. I did not, however, say that in a previous post as you asserted I had.
To clarify, the government should support human rights and basic human dignity because it is the decent thing to do. To further clarify, decency is not synonymous with morality or religious beliefs. One may well be partnered with the other, but they are independent of each other, not interdependent.
35 - Diana Hartman
I said: Why this insistence of our having no control, or worse, trying to apply words to it that are not synonyms of it?
You said: Because I don't always understand what you're saying. I'm trying to come at this any way I can.
You insist we have no control because you don’t understand what I’m saying?
Try coming at this from the angle of answering a direct question with an answer relevent to the question.
36 - Diana Hartman
Marlon said: A college education is also a privilege, not a right and I believe it should remain so. Remember that piece of paper called the constitution? If I’m not mistaken it says we all have the “right” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. It says nothing about catching it, just the right to pursue it.
I agree, a college education is not a right. It is a privilege granted those who are smart enough to complete the assignments and who study hard enough to pass the tests. Oh yea, and the money.
All things being equal (diligence, intelligence), if it’s okay with you that money is the only thing separating a person and their “right to pursue” an education, then let’s jack up the price and the conditions of getting a driver’s license or a permit to have a garage sale and let’s see how many cry out “Privilege!” in defense of the rising cost and trouble of selling one’s wares out of one’s driveway.
The bottom line is: No cash, no college, no questions. We don't care how much of a contribution to society you might make. We're not interested in the your "cure for cancer" or your "spinal cord regeneration." It's more important that you not violate our right to pursue the happiness we feel when we get to see you turned away from college for not other reason than because you're poor.
I said in a previous post: The government supports people but does not require attendance in finance classes, parenting classes, nutrition courses or vocational/GED/college training.
Required attendance? Sounds a bit like re-education camps to me (and yes I am paranoid). Am I hearing mandatory government intervention from the same woman who screamed so loudly when the “government experts” told you to “medicate your child”? Who had the correct answer to that one? Her mother did, because she knew the child and the “expert” only had a snapshot to base a judgment on.
For the benefit of those who don’t know what you’re talking about, the mother and child (myself and my daughter) were subject to limited civil liberties as afforded to those in and of the U.S. military. We, which is to say I, agreed to that when I married a Marine and hopped onto a military installation. What happened to us would never happen to a civilian. Also, the fix was as easy as requesting the charge of “neglect” be proven, which it was not and I knew it couldn’t be, thus the charge was thrown out right along with the mandate.
For the record, if the civilian world ran more like the military world (far fewer civil liberties), I’d be a happier camper.
Anyway, yes, required attendance " just like in college. In college, you don’t have to attend class, but if you don’t, you won’t get your degree. On welfare (my version) you don’t have to go to the classes, but if you don’t, you won’t get your check.
The government mandating anything has FAIL written all over it.
Are you and Baronius eating from the same trough? The government is a body of people. You know people, yes? Me, you, us, them. The government is not a pit of alligators or a Petri dish of bacteria. It is of us, by us and for us. Thus, (so many “us”-es!), it only has “fail” written all over it if us, er we vote it so.
We’re talking about education, healthcare and food. We’re not talking about religious belief, political affiliation or what kind of welcome mat you must have on your front door.
So far as I know, about the only things the government has been successful at include building roads, prisons and raising an army. I REALLY don’t want MORE government in my life.
Really? What’s up with you and your driver’s license, gun license, home ownership (per the interest rate), the schools your children have attended, the liquor and business licenses of your favorite establishments, your use of postage, your having ever called 911 and expecting someone to show up? I’ve heard few, if any, complaints.
Seems to me that any true “less government” kind of person would, out of constitutional spite, demand restitution from the post office for all the postage they’d ever paid for, drive a car and own a gun without license, put their kids in private school, and patronize only those businesses whose owner/operators thumbed their nose at any kind of government regulation. Speaking of which, what’s up with the meat you eat? USDA, right? For that matter, how do you, oh he who would make the government smaller, explain your dip into the food supply? Are you growing your own chickens and chow mien? I thought not.
Before you think I’ve gone and proven your point, consider for a moment the many things we the people have gotten right, and then further consider that if we can get so many things right, it means we can do it again " and again and again. Failure was voted in; it wasn’t waved in by some wizard’s wand. Success was also voted in, and was not the result of some random defiance of the laws of physics.
Dread answers for himself. I will point out, however, I never said we should educate prisoners. I said we should minimize our prison population, reserve it for violent offenders (see above for my definition of a violent offender), and dump our non-violent offenders off in the land of natural and logical consequences: Tell me what the non-violent criminal did and I will show you the fastest (and legal) way to convince that person to never do that again.
37 - RJ
"Of the more than 300 million residents of the United States, over 2.3 million of its adults are in prison or jail. That’s one out of every 100 of us."
Speaking of college educations, I would recommend a refresher mathematics course. (Or two.)
"Due to recent overhauls in financial aid, the United States could send their entire criminal population to Harvard for a four-year degree and still spend less money per prisoner per year."
Except, a) most people in jail or prison are semi-literate high-school dropouts with 85 IQs who would be completely lost in any university setting, especially an Ivy League school, and b) most of these prisoners have committed multiple felonies; in other words, they are habitual offenders. How many co-eds would be sacrificed to rape or murder if we implemented such a naive policy?
"For less money, we could be graduating rocket scientists instead of paroling rocks."
You seem to believe that everyone is equally intelligent, equally motivated to be successful within the confines of the law, and equally educable. Common sense and empirical evidence contradicts this notion.
"Sure, there are your serial killers, sex-offenders, and other assorted repeat offenders who should, by all means, stay in prison forever, but are there 2.3 million of them? More than one million of those currently behind bars are non-violent offenders."
Well, perhaps many of these one million plea-bargained down to a "non-violent" offense. (And plenty of violent offenders don't ever wind up in jail or prison, either.) But anyway, what about the other 1.3 million? Should we unleash them all on the campuses of American universities as some sort of misguided cost-cutting measure?
"What, then, could possibly be the justification for there being that many people in prison in the first place when it costs less to educate them before they so much as pick a pocket?"
ProTip: Some people would rather rape you or cut your throat for 50 dollars than spend four years studying sociology and astronomy. I mean, seriously.
38 - RJ
"Punishment per se isn't a factor here as even the most eye-for-an-eye conservative knows that simply punishing a criminal doesn't work as a future preventive."
There's a difference between specific deterrence and general deterrence.
The fact of the matter is, crime skyrocketed during the liberal criminal justice policies of the 1960s to the 1980s. Once more conservative crime control policies (focusing on incarceration and deterrence as opposed to rehabilitation) were implemented in the late 1980s and through the 1990s to the present day, crime rates have collapsed.
39 - RJ
"Back on topic, exactly what is the basis for your assertion that rehabilitation doesn't work? Any studies, statistics?"
Check it out. Required reading for all Criminal Justice students.
40 - Marlon
Di,
It just struck me, you have just effectively made the case for NCLB (No Criminal Left Behind).
Pun intended.
41 - RJ
"JOM, all that study shows is that inmates are likely to reoffend. If anything, it demonstrates that incarceration doesn't work."
Well, no. Of course incarceration works. Here's a hint: While they are in prison, THEY AREN'T OUT ON THE STREETS REOFFENDING.
"Well, they have to be released sometime!" you exclaim. Well, depending on the crime, maybe. But offenders tend to "age out" of crime after a while. The peak offending years are roughly ages 15-30. If some scumbag commits three felonies at age 18, I have no problem locking his ass away until he's in his mid-30s, when he is less likely to reoffend.
Of course, the pro-criminal left has a tendency to go berserk when both empirical data and common sense combine to form a successful conservative ideological viewpoint. Which is why "three strikes" laws are so widely condemned by the academic elite, in their gated communities.
There is an undeniable direct correlation between the implementation of policies such as three-strikes laws, and the dramatic drop in crime that has occurred over the last 15 years or so. It's often amusing to witness academic leftists argue against both obvious research findings and basic logic and common sense. In that regard, studying criminal justice has been immensely fulfilling over the last few years. ;-)
42 - RJ
"This article treats Harvard and jail as if they're interchangable. Society doesn't randomly assign some people to prison, others to Ivy League schools. It takes individual effort to end up in either location."
Ah, thank you. Your entire comment #14 was much better said and more concise than what I wrote in response. :-)
43 - RJ
"It wasn't their choice to be born into poverty"
See: Welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps, WIC, Head Start, free public education, earned income tax credit, etc.
"without access to healthcare"
See: Medicaid, SCHIP, local health clinics, private charities, and emergency room hospital visits that require no insurance and are generally written off for the indigent, etc.
"or without access (read: knowledge of how to get and work toward) higher education."
That's their own (and/or their parents') fault. With a high school diploma or a GED, they can get into any community (junior) college in their state. They can also get Pell grants and other government-provided or subsidized funding. With an AA or AS, they can get into a four-year state university, and also receive financial aid and scholarships. And with a Bachelors Degree, they can get a decent job that will "break the cycle of poverty" or whatever it's called by their enablers.
44 - Marlon
Diana said: The bottom line is: No cash, no college, no questions.
That is by far the biggest crock you have posted to date. You and I both know that is not the case. Between grants, scholarships (not all of which are based on intelligence or skill) and student loans there is not a person of legal age that is barred from attending a university.
Granted it probably won’t be Harvard but then getting into Harvard is VERY competitive and many moneyed students are turned away from their ivy covered walls simply because they don’t meet the academic criteria.
For those not aware, I am an ex-con. I was tried, convicted and sentenced. I did my time and spent 5 years on probation. After my release I, a high school dropout with a GED, a wife and children to support went to college. I was working a near minimum wage job 40 hours a week, attending no less than 15 hours of classes per semester, and working part time on campus.
Between student loans, Pell grants and Perkins loans I was able to graduate with a bachelors degree in just over 4 years. So you cannot convince me that a person with limited means is barred from a higher education.
45 - RJ
"By middle school we've taught them that we won't keep drug dealers, gun-totin' hooligans and pedophiles away from them."
Maybe because people like yourself don't want to lock them up?
"By now they've spent about seven years eating crap food at lunch and failing or doing poorly in any post-lunch classes because their brains are bogged down - assuming they got breakfast."
I almost never ate breakfast, and rarely ate lunch at school. I'm working on my second Masters degree. (Pwned.)
"We have the money to feed students and we choose to spend that money on crap."
But if it's supposedly so important, why can't mommy and daddy bring a healthy lunch to school with their kid? Or is basic parenting 101 now the federal government's responsibility?
"By the time a child is in the 9th grade, we've made it clear that our uptight, out-of-control puritan beliefs will keep them from knowing about their bodies, how they work and what their bodies will do."
Is that also no longer a parent's responsibility, but now something the state needs to take on? Have no fear: Barack Hussein Obama wants sex-ed for Kindergarteners!
46 - RJ
"Every failed adult is the result of our having failed a child."
Yes, it surely takes a village to raise a generation of Übermensch. Every child is above-average in every way, here on Planet Wobegon. GENES AND BIOLOGY AND FREE WILL ARE LIES.
47 - RJ
"For the record, if the civilian world ran more like the military world (far fewer civil liberties), I'd be a happier camper."
[shudder]
Bill Buckley's body just did a backflip.
48 - RJ
"Seems to me that any true "less government" kind of person would, out of constitutional spite, demand restitution from the post office for all the postage they'd ever paid for, drive a car and own a gun without license, put their kids in private school, and patronize only those businesses whose owner/operators thumbed their nose at any kind of government regulation. Speaking of which, what's up with the meat you eat? USDA, right? For that matter, how do you, oh he who would make the government smaller, explain your dip into the food supply? Are you growing your own chickens and chow mien? I thought not."
This is a common leftist argument. Just because the federal government has presently decided to swoop in and regulate nearly every aspect of our lives, we therefore OWE nearly every aspect of our lives to the federal government.
Sorta like Clarence Thomas cannot possibly oppose "Affirmative Action" because he benefited from it whether he wanted to or not, amiright?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Attributed to Barry Goldwater
For examples, see: Cuba, North Korea, the USSR (d. 1991), etc.
49 - REMF
"This is a common leftist argument. Just because the federal government has presently decided to swoop in and regulate nearly every aspect of our lives, we therefore OWE nearly every aspect of our lives to the federal government."
- RJ Elliott
One aspect it needs to bring back is the draft. And no deferments this time.
50 - Dr Dreadful
RJ, my goodness. Some of us really do seem to have got your criminal justice student knickers in a twist, don't we? :-)
Your #39:
Check it out. Required reading for all Criminal Justice students.
That's it??!!?? One lousy paragraph on studies that were conducted upwards of forty years ago? No wonder I couldn't find anything online when I searched...
I found the following sentence from the paragraph revealing:
"In a 1978 publication he admitted that they had left out of their study some pieces of research which may have shown rehabilitation to be more effective than they had publicly stated."
Kudos to you, though, for actually pointing to some research - which is more than JOM bothered to do.
51 - Kevin
I've lived among criminals most of my adult life. And it is obvious to me that most of them just don't "get it." That is, they have a skewed sense of logic, that they apply to every aspect of life, from civility, to morality, mathematics. When asked, the overwhelming majority will say that they never finished thee 7th grade, let alone highschool. Talk about arrested development! The reason these people didn't finish school was because school was not culturally important. Family, friends, neighbors, downplayed the significance of an education. To change things, the culture that criminals grow up in, mostly projects and ghettos, must be transformed. To do that, you must start with the children. And separate them from the influences of the culture they are raised in. - good luck getting that done.
52 - Diana Hartman
Marlon said: Between student loans, Pell grants and Perkins loans I was able to graduate with a bachelors degree in just over 4 years. So you cannot convince me that a person with limited means is barred from a higher education.
A person with limited means has to secure loans and grants " which are cash. Again, no cash, no college, no questions. Loans and grants must be sought out and qualified for, and under no circumstances will one application pay one’s entire way. Year after year (for some, semester after semester), the applications go in and the student waits to see if s/he qualifies, and then waits for the money to arrive.
I’m not downplaying what you had to do by any stretch of the imagination. I’m saying you, of all people, are a prime example of why it should be easier " and prepaid.
How long did society have to wait before reaping the benefits of your contributions? How much money did society spend on your incarceration? Tell me that much money would not have been better spent on your education before you did what you did that created a tab for the state.
Why should you have to have waited? We graduated from the same high school, Marlon. Remember the hoopla? I don’t. Where were the college recruiters? Where was the money then - the loans and the grants? We were among the smartest and still no one was there to say, “You can do this!” How many of us from that class made something of ourselves -- much later -- and how many are still walking around intelligent, but still sure there’s no way in because no one has told them otherwise? What of the other high schools in the area? Those children are still without the knowledge of how to do it and that is completely unjustified.
You cannot tell me there aren’t kids you can keep off the streets with little more than showing them just how a certain path is taken. You can’t tell me this because I’ve seen drug dealers and gangs show kids how a certain path is taken " and they take it because there’s no other path in sight.
I’m not suggesting we force anyone into college. I’m saying everyone who could and should go to college should be given every bit of information and assistance necessary to get them into college and well on their way to becoming a productive citizen for their own benefit, the benefit of their future family and of society.
We are Family " and all that. Yes, we’ve got the bastard children who are going to end up locked away no matter what we do, and frankly I don’t think they’re that hard to spot. Conversely, the child who could very well make a fine electrical engineer or paleontologist is left on the side of the road, and why? Because it’s ridiculously easy to ignore those who don’t cause trouble, who go bag groceries everyday because they’ve been shut out of the idea of going to college. There are a lot more of them than there are troublemakers.
We spend all our time (and money) oiling the squeaky wheels and then wonder why there are so few people to man the cogs.
Your whole issue with our oversized, failing government highlights my growing concern: we aren’t educating those who could successfully fill those positions. We’re stuck with politicians, most of whom hail from the most affluent families (read: those who don’t know the meaning of the word thrift, and who wouldn’t know a thrifty course of action if it bit them in the face).
Who are the most respected people in the armed forces? Those who went from enlisted to officer. The civilian world is no different. Those who make it up out of the ghetto garner way more respect and possess way more life skills than those born with a silver spoon in their mouths. They are the leaders we trust because they know our pain, our struggle and our worth. Why then would we not promote that sector of the population instead of lamenting those we’ve allowed to take over " the same “those” who have no idea what it means to balance a budget or close the screen door to keep the flies out?
53 - Diana Hartman
RJ, to address each of your concerns and questions would be to repost my article and the comments I’ve made. To save time for both of us, and much like the teenager who can’t answer the homework questions because they admittedly didn’t read the assigned chapters, I suggest you reread all of the above. If you still have questions and concerns, by all means, let’s hear ‘em.
54 - Baronius
RJ and Marlon - thanks for picking up the slack. I start to feel guilty when I log off my computer.
Marlon, that's a great story. Some people to go from prison to college, and some in the other direction. Diana's right that your path takes a lot, but money is the least of what it takes.
Diana has a plan for everything, from broad fiscal policy to sentencing recommendations. Thank God we have a Constitution to block her. She doesn't seem to understand that "let's give your money to him" is a form of coersion. But that's small potatoes compared to the role she sees for government to promote an ethical code.
There's probably no more debasing force in our culture than rap. It appeals to the worst tendencies in our society, and reinforces them. And it's marketed to kids. I can't imagine how much better off we'll be once rap finally disappears. We as a society need to come together to get rid of it. But "we" as a government shouldn't. I'd be terrified to give government that kind of power.
(Diana, I keep messing up when I try to understand your position. I'm sorry if I'm mischaracterizing it again.)
Diana sees no difference between a people doing something and a government doing it. But the government doesn't allow individuals to opt out. 100% of us aren't going to agree, for example, on how to educate our children about sex. If Diana wants to teach her kids about condoms, I won't try to stop her. But she reserves the right to teach my kids about condoms, over my objection. Call it control, coersion, whatever; she's in favor of using government to intrude on my rights.
55 - Diana Hartman
Baronius says: Diana has a plan for everything, from broad fiscal policy to sentencing recommendations.
You know, I’m right here. You can direct your concerns to me rather than talking about me like I’m not here.
Thank God we have a Constitution to block her. She doesn't seem to understand that "let's give your money to him" is a form of coersion. But that's small potatoes compared to the role she sees for government to promote an ethical code.
What ethical code? And where in the constitution does it say there is no way the government will ever pay for a person’s education?
There's probably no more debasing force in our culture than rap. It appeals to the worst tendencies in our society, and reinforces them. And it's marketed to kids. I can't imagine how much better off we'll be once rap finally disappears. We as a society need to come together to get rid of it. But "we" as a government shouldn't. I'd be terrified to give government that kind of power.
I agree. How does this relate to anything I’ve asserted?
(Diana, I keep messing up when I try to understand your position. I'm sorry if I'm mischaracterizing it again.)
Try ditching the parentheses and addressing me directly.
Diana sees no difference between a people doing something and a government doing it.
Unlike China, Russia and Cuba, we are governed by ourselves in the form of those we freely elect to represent us " to include our views, opinions, preferences and ideas.
But the government doesn't allow individuals to opt out.
You’re confusing the government of the United States with governments that indeed do not allow individuals to opt out.
100% of us aren't going to agree, for example, on how to educate our children about sex. If Diana wants to teach her kids about condoms, I won't try to stop her. But she reserves the right to teach my kids about condoms, over my objection. Call it control, coersion, whatever; she's in favor of using government to intrude on my rights.
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.
I reserve the right (because it is my right) to redress my grievances. In this case, my grievance would be you and yours allowing the government to pay for the result of ignorance (services rendered to unwed teens and their children who cannot afford their own upkeep, [AFDC, food stamps, etc] as well as deadbeats whose unpaid debt leaves the government supporting his/her family), but you formally oppose the significantly cheaper option of the government paying for education (both sexual and higher).
56 - Diana Hartman
Baronius said: RJ and Marlon - thanks for picking up the slack. I start to feel guilty when I log off my computer.
I am reminded of the time I kicked all three of my brothers’ asses in a rousing Thanksgiving game of Kill the Guy With the Ball on my grandmother’s snow-covered front lawn in 1976. In retrospect, it is most amusing to recall their battle cry to each other, “C’mon! Pick up the slack!”
57 - Clavos
"You're confusing the government of the United States with governments that indeed do not allow individuals to opt out."
No he's not.
Try not sending your kids to school in most jurisdictions.
Or not wearing a helmet when you ride your motorcycle in many jurisdictions.
Or not paying your taxes.
Or not registering your car or boat (exclusively a revenue generating measure, no other valid reason; law enforcement can identify them by the VIN or HIN).
Try smoking pot in public practically anywhere, no matter your age.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
58 - Baronius
Diana, your words: "I do think government should support decency...To clarify, the government should support human rights and basic human dignity because it is the decent thing to do." That sounds like an ethical code to me.
As for condoms, you've brought them up twice as an example of what we should be teaching our children. You can't have it both ways. Some of these statements you make have got to mean something. Either you're arguing for a governmentally-enforced definition of decency or you're not. I've been trying all weekend to pin you down, and you're just not answering clearly.
No one wants to think of himself as a thug. We all believe that government should do only a limited number of things - including the things we want. That's human nature. But you've got to move past the instinctive here, and think out what you're implying. You can't defend the limitation of civil liberties only in the areas you support, without allowing government to remove civil liberties at whim.
To reiterate Clavos' point: just because you believe that half of our prisoners shouldn't be behind bars, doesn't give you the option of skipping a proportional tax payment. Since you're the one who chose to write this article, it falls on you to clarify how far you think government should be allowed to go in enforcing your vision.
59 - Dr Dreadful
I think the attitude of Kevin, in comment #51, is the saddest indictment of the way things are in the US.
Kevin gets it. He knows criminals. Having lived around them all his life, he understands what causes them to take their chosen life paths.
And then he just gives up and says there's nothing to be done for them. Just... sad.
60 - Diana Hartman
Try not sending your kids to school in most jurisdictions.
Try homeschooling.
Or not wearing a helmet when you ride your motorcycle in many jurisdictions.
Try moving or redressing the grievance.
Or not paying your taxes.
Try filing for tax-exempt status.
Or not registering your car or boat (exclusively a revenue generating measure, no other valid reason; law enforcement can identify them by the VIN or HIN).
Try redressing the grievance.
Try smoking pot in public practically anywhere, no matter your age.
This is not a constitutionally guaranteed right like owning a gun. If you want to make it as much, do allow me to tack on something way more important: education and healthcare.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
What is the idea?
61 - Diana Hartman
As for condoms, you've brought them up twice as an example of what we should be teaching our children. You can't have it both ways. Some of these statements you make have got to mean something. Either you're arguing for a governmentally-enforced definition of decency or you're not.
What does decency have to do with it?
I've been trying all weekend to pin you down, and you're just not answering clearly.
What is your question?
No one wants to think of himself as a thug.
Relevance?
We all believe that government should do only a limited number of things - including the things we want.
No we don’t all think that. Some of us remember the government, unlike a dictatorship or theocracy, is made up of its citizens. It is not an enemy - it is us. Therefore, what the government does is our doing, to and for ourselves.
That's human nature. But you've got to move past the instinctive here, and think out what you're implying. You can't defend the limitation of civil liberties only in the areas you support, without allowing government to remove civil liberties at whim.
Yes, I can. I am. Everyday, with every article I write, email/letter I send, civic activity of which I partake, and so forth. The government is as much mine as anyone else’s. If more people participated in its defense (actively or indirectly " no, I do not mean Iraq), perhaps more people would feel the sense of ownership I do. That you and many others have given up on your share (read: civic responsibility) doesn’t mean the rest of us should, have to or will.
To reiterate Clavos' point: just because you believe that half of our prisoners shouldn't be behind bars, doesn't give you the option of skipping a proportional tax payment.
I didn’t say it did.
Since you're the one who chose to write this article, it falls on you to clarify how far you think government should be allowed to go in enforcing your vision.
Give me an issue, I’ll tell you what I think should/not be done about it.
62 - Clavos
"What is the idea?"
If that question wasn't rhetorical, you sorely lack comprehension skills.
None of your responses in #60 addressed the central point: that this government, right here in the United States of America, does NOT allow citizens to OPT OUT of a number of governmental requirements which should be individual choices. The suggestions you make are not opting out; they are approved alternatives; a huge difference.
Here's another example I forgot the first time around:
Try stopping the government from seizing your property "for the greater good" and then handing it over to a private developer.
And, if Hillary is the next president, try choosing not to have health insurance.
63 - Diana Hartman
If that question wasn't rhetorical, you sorely lack comprehension skills.
Insult being the last refuge of the defeated, what’s keeping you from answering the question? Also, what’s the answer to the question?
None of your responses in #60 addressed the central point: that this government, right here in the United States of America, does NOT allow citizens to OPT OUT of a number of governmental requirements which should be individual choices. The suggestions you make are not opting out; they are approved alternatives; a huge difference.
So, it’s not that you want to get out of sending your kids to school; it’s that you’d rather have the right not to educate them at all. Put your money where your mouth is. If you’re opposed to someone forcing you to educate your child through age 16 (depending on where you live), then fight it where it will do you some good to do so instead of tapping out your discontent in a forum where your desires will not be met. Should you choose to do that, an education would come in mighty handy.
Here's another example I forgot the first time around:
Try stopping the government from seizing your property "for the greater good" and then handing it over to a private developer.
See above paragraph.
My issues with public domain have been made abundantly clear to my government representatives and I am currently awaiting a third response from one in particular. How’s your commentary going with your reps " or are you content to withhold your input and then complain when the input of others is legislated?
And, if Hillary is the next president, try choosing not to have health insurance.
Really, you think she’ll win? I don’t see it. Let’s cross that bridge when we get to it. Perhaps you’ll write an article about how bad it will be if she wins and why.
64 - Dr Dreadful
Diana's right, Clav. The questions Baronius raised are legislative, not constitutional. With enough public backing, the laws governing them can easily be changed.
65 - Diana Hartman
I said, "I do think government should support decency."
I did not say the government should legislate it.
Government funding for food programs is decent and supports decency - without, say, telling everyone in a food program to become a vegetarian.
66 - Anon
And then he just gives up and says there's nothing to be done for them. Just... sad.
Whats more sad is delusional people wasting money on trying to 'rehabilitate' the toxic scum like pedophiles, cold blooded killers, rapists, etc.
I'm all for helping out minor offenders, non violent offenders, someone who stole to feed his/her family and so forth. Rehabilitate them all you want.
But I don't want my tax dollars going to understanding why someone rapes and kills a child. I have no interest in knowing that. All I need to know is that they are suffering for their actions.
Here's a couple alternatives to improving the state of prisoners committing more crimes:
Send known associates, gang members, etc to different prisons. A LA gangbanger should be sent to Alaska and a FL gangmember can be sent to a prison in Maine or Utah. Seperate them so they cant congregate in prison and strengthen their gangs.
Today we have all arrested members of an LA gang going to the same prisons in California. Of course they are going to get stronger and more deadly. Send one to Utah and one to Maine and then lets see how strong they get.
Second, expediate the death penalty. Some people need to be executed and that process should be expedited so it can be used as an effective deterrent.
I believe state bans on the death penalty are unconstitutional or at least worth a debate.
Here's an example from Connecticut.. A guy was in prison serving 2 life sentences for murders. In prison, he raped and killed a female guard and you know his punishment? Fasten your seatbelts: It was a third life term. That'll teach him!
I don't know about others but for me, after the first life term without parole, the next terms dont really have the desired effect..just my opinion. He basically got a free pass on the murder of the guard.
So delusional people are welcome to their delusions - just dont waste my tax dollars on figuring out why some scumbag did what he did. I don't care at all. I'd rather have my tax dollars go to the victims.
67 - Clavos
"Insult being the last refuge of the defeated, what's keeping you from answering the question? Also, what's the answer to the question?"
Sadly, you apparently are lacking in comprehension.
Your original remark was:
"You're confusing the government of the United States with governments that indeed do not allow individuals to opt out."
The answer is we DO live in a country where the government imposes requirements on us without an opportunity to simply "opt out," unless it's by means of even more onerous alternatives such as those suggested in your #60.
Put another way: 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.
And 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."
68 - Clavos
Diana,
Further on the comprehension "insult" (which if an insult, was entirely unintentional; I DID allow for the possibility of your question being rhetorical):
"And, if Hillary is the next president, try choosing not to have health insurance.
Really, you think she'll win? I don't see it."
Since when does "if" mean "when?"
Where in that statement did I imply I thought she would be elected?
"If" means just that: IF.
69 - Dr Dreadful
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.
70 - Clavos
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...
71 - Diana Hartman
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.
72 - Clavos
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.
73 - RJ Elliott
"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
74 - RJ Elliott
"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.
75 - Diana Hartman
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.