While the staff recommendation for the county is to approve the three sites which would fulfill the requirements by the county to identify three sites before a deadline, there is some suggestion that the county may seek to try to rank-order the sites as well. This move may alleviate anxiety for some county residents who are overwhelmingly opposed to the placement of such a facility near their communities.
We have covered a number of different aspects of this in the last few days. Today we will tie up a few loose ends.
Tonight, the Davis City Council will get briefed on the issue. By then the Board of Supervisors may have already made some sort of decision at least in terms of a preference order. It seems unlikely that the issue will be resolved by tonight.
In Sunday’s Vanguard, Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek expressed concerns both about the project and the process.
“The proposed project is located in the Davis planning area, it would have a Davis address. And the occupants of the facility would be released into our community. So yes, I have very strong concerns.”
One of his big concerns was the lack of communication between the county and the city of Davis.
“I had actually heard from neighbors of the area, outside the city limits, before I had heard anything from city staff or the county. That leads me to believe that our city staff was not kept abreast of the plan to propose this site and it leads me to believe that our inclusion in the process was not considered from the beginning.”
While Councilmember Heystek expressed concern about the possibility of city services being required for the county airport location, Supervisor Matt Rexroad downplayed that possibility.
In an email from Thursday night, Supervisor Rexroad acknowledged that the road situation might be a problem, but believed that other potential shortcomings could be resolved.
“I think the road issues is the biggest one in this area. The flooding issue, power issue, and a couple others that were mentioned tonight can be solved and improved for others with this project.”
One of the big questions is who would be required to solve those problems. The city of Camarillo is going through a similar experience with a federally imposed prison hospital that might be built near their city. The city there has argued that they probably do not have the power to the prevent the federal or state government from placing the facility in Ventura County, but they are under no obligation to supply it with water.
The issue of fire staffing and emergency services seems to be more tricky. Currently the Plainfield area is served by a volunteer fire department with two volunteer firefighters. In an emergency at the prison, that would quickly overwhelm them. Who would be required to back them up?
All of these questions could have been resolved had the county been more forthcoming and communicated with the cities.
Councilmember Heystek:
“We want to maintain a positive relationship with our counterparts in the county. We have already learned from the lessons of the northwest quadrant that the city of Davis has a very strong interest in protecting interests not only within our boundaries but also within areas of our county where we have a clear say on, per agreement and per conventional planning principals.
It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way.”
Meanwhile there was word yesterday that another group has an interest in the proceedings with the county today–the Sacramento Central Labor Council and the building trades. They will be looking to ensure that any contract has provisions to use union workers to design the facility. There is indication that these groups will show up in mass today to urge the county to place provisions within any authorization for the re-entry facility that it must have union labor.
However, much has to occur before that can even happen. The board of supervisors meeting will likely be packed today with residents urging that they not build in their backyard.
Stay tuned to Vanguard for the latest news and updates on this situation throughout the day.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
If you haven’t yet read the language of AB 900 and the Penal Code statutes covering re-entry facilities, you really need to do that. These facilities need to be established in urban locations where the infrastructure and services are located.
Furthermore, the inmates who will be at this facility are those who come predominately from Yolo County’s incorporated areas: Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento. Guess where most of them will be returning. If the cities, the intended beneficiaries of this type of facility and the associated programs, don’t want a re-entry facility, then let us all keep the status quo.
If you haven’t yet read the language of AB 900 and the Penal Code statutes covering re-entry facilities, you really need to do that. These facilities need to be established in urban locations where the infrastructure and services are located.
Furthermore, the inmates who will be at this facility are those who come predominately from Yolo County’s incorporated areas: Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento. Guess where most of them will be returning. If the cities, the intended beneficiaries of this type of facility and the associated programs, don’t want a re-entry facility, then let us all keep the status quo.
If you haven’t yet read the language of AB 900 and the Penal Code statutes covering re-entry facilities, you really need to do that. These facilities need to be established in urban locations where the infrastructure and services are located.
Furthermore, the inmates who will be at this facility are those who come predominately from Yolo County’s incorporated areas: Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento. Guess where most of them will be returning. If the cities, the intended beneficiaries of this type of facility and the associated programs, don’t want a re-entry facility, then let us all keep the status quo.
If you haven’t yet read the language of AB 900 and the Penal Code statutes covering re-entry facilities, you really need to do that. These facilities need to be established in urban locations where the infrastructure and services are located.
Furthermore, the inmates who will be at this facility are those who come predominately from Yolo County’s incorporated areas: Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento. Guess where most of them will be returning. If the cities, the intended beneficiaries of this type of facility and the associated programs, don’t want a re-entry facility, then let us all keep the status quo.
The state locks up far too many people. This “re-entry” facility is just a way to relieve the overcrowding, without building a new prison. It will be a de-facto prison. It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.
The state locks up far too many people. This “re-entry” facility is just a way to relieve the overcrowding, without building a new prison. It will be a de-facto prison. It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.
The state locks up far too many people. This “re-entry” facility is just a way to relieve the overcrowding, without building a new prison. It will be a de-facto prison. It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.
The state locks up far too many people. This “re-entry” facility is just a way to relieve the overcrowding, without building a new prison. It will be a de-facto prison. It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.
Agree with the urban comment; I always felt putting it in such a rural area as several of the sites seem to be, is somewhat defeating the purpose of ‘re entry’…and then to read Mike Harrington’s comment which if true, makes the whole theoretically good idea, moot…..It seems like such a good idea that could turn some inmates’ lives around by slowly reentering successfully. Anyone know the track record of facilities such as this? I am more aware of smaller, halfway houses, which can be successful, measured by inmates’ reentry success.
Agree with the urban comment; I always felt putting it in such a rural area as several of the sites seem to be, is somewhat defeating the purpose of ‘re entry’…and then to read Mike Harrington’s comment which if true, makes the whole theoretically good idea, moot…..It seems like such a good idea that could turn some inmates’ lives around by slowly reentering successfully. Anyone know the track record of facilities such as this? I am more aware of smaller, halfway houses, which can be successful, measured by inmates’ reentry success.
Agree with the urban comment; I always felt putting it in such a rural area as several of the sites seem to be, is somewhat defeating the purpose of ‘re entry’…and then to read Mike Harrington’s comment which if true, makes the whole theoretically good idea, moot…..It seems like such a good idea that could turn some inmates’ lives around by slowly reentering successfully. Anyone know the track record of facilities such as this? I am more aware of smaller, halfway houses, which can be successful, measured by inmates’ reentry success.
Agree with the urban comment; I always felt putting it in such a rural area as several of the sites seem to be, is somewhat defeating the purpose of ‘re entry’…and then to read Mike Harrington’s comment which if true, makes the whole theoretically good idea, moot…..It seems like such a good idea that could turn some inmates’ lives around by slowly reentering successfully. Anyone know the track record of facilities such as this? I am more aware of smaller, halfway houses, which can be successful, measured by inmates’ reentry success.
These aren’t really halfway houses, prisoners do not get released at any point, but it does put them in a location to help them reconnect with their families and it also gives them skills hopefully to be able to get jobs and avoid falling back into old habits.
I’m curious to know, having read AB 900 myself, why the facility needs to be in an urban location? Granted the state will have to fund the facilities, infrastructure, and services, but I don’t see why it necessarily has to go in an urban setting. In fact, the language of the bill almost precludes it from going in one.
These aren’t really halfway houses, prisoners do not get released at any point, but it does put them in a location to help them reconnect with their families and it also gives them skills hopefully to be able to get jobs and avoid falling back into old habits.
I’m curious to know, having read AB 900 myself, why the facility needs to be in an urban location? Granted the state will have to fund the facilities, infrastructure, and services, but I don’t see why it necessarily has to go in an urban setting. In fact, the language of the bill almost precludes it from going in one.
These aren’t really halfway houses, prisoners do not get released at any point, but it does put them in a location to help them reconnect with their families and it also gives them skills hopefully to be able to get jobs and avoid falling back into old habits.
I’m curious to know, having read AB 900 myself, why the facility needs to be in an urban location? Granted the state will have to fund the facilities, infrastructure, and services, but I don’t see why it necessarily has to go in an urban setting. In fact, the language of the bill almost precludes it from going in one.
These aren’t really halfway houses, prisoners do not get released at any point, but it does put them in a location to help them reconnect with their families and it also gives them skills hopefully to be able to get jobs and avoid falling back into old habits.
I’m curious to know, having read AB 900 myself, why the facility needs to be in an urban location? Granted the state will have to fund the facilities, infrastructure, and services, but I don’t see why it necessarily has to go in an urban setting. In fact, the language of the bill almost precludes it from going in one.
mike harrington said “It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.”
Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding. The re-entry facility idea is the result of the desire to help deliver services to guys that have a moderate to high risk of just returning to crime once they are released and returning to prison after creating some level of misery in their communities.
The re-entry facility is a way to relieve over-crowding instead of merely releasing prisoners into the community. It also is an attempt to relieve overcrowding that is a result of released prisoners coming back.
The other element would be to offer services at the other end – before they are sent to prison, such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services, anger replacement programs, job training, gang intervention at earlier ages, economic development, etc.
mike harrington said “It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.”
Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding. The re-entry facility idea is the result of the desire to help deliver services to guys that have a moderate to high risk of just returning to crime once they are released and returning to prison after creating some level of misery in their communities.
The re-entry facility is a way to relieve over-crowding instead of merely releasing prisoners into the community. It also is an attempt to relieve overcrowding that is a result of released prisoners coming back.
The other element would be to offer services at the other end – before they are sent to prison, such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services, anger replacement programs, job training, gang intervention at earlier ages, economic development, etc.
mike harrington said “It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.”
Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding. The re-entry facility idea is the result of the desire to help deliver services to guys that have a moderate to high risk of just returning to crime once they are released and returning to prison after creating some level of misery in their communities.
The re-entry facility is a way to relieve over-crowding instead of merely releasing prisoners into the community. It also is an attempt to relieve overcrowding that is a result of released prisoners coming back.
The other element would be to offer services at the other end – before they are sent to prison, such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services, anger replacement programs, job training, gang intervention at earlier ages, economic development, etc.
mike harrington said “It gives the state more room to hold people, and frees up the existing prisons to hold more people.”
Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding. The re-entry facility idea is the result of the desire to help deliver services to guys that have a moderate to high risk of just returning to crime once they are released and returning to prison after creating some level of misery in their communities.
The re-entry facility is a way to relieve over-crowding instead of merely releasing prisoners into the community. It also is an attempt to relieve overcrowding that is a result of released prisoners coming back.
The other element would be to offer services at the other end – before they are sent to prison, such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services, anger replacement programs, job training, gang intervention at earlier ages, economic development, etc.
Sounds like there is general agreement to try to rank order the locations during the course of the meeting.
Sounds like there is general agreement to try to rank order the locations during the course of the meeting.
Sounds like there is general agreement to try to rank order the locations during the course of the meeting.
Sounds like there is general agreement to try to rank order the locations during the course of the meeting.
“Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding.”
That doesn’t contravene what Mike Harrington said. His point, I think, is that we are sentencing too many people to prison for too long. I share this view.
However, it is complicated, because we have so many children growing up in screwed up families* who then go on to lead a life of crime as late teens and as adults. They might start out as petty drug dealers, but they progress to car theft, burglary, assault, gun crimes, gangsterism and so on. It’s easy to say we need to reform them earlier in the correctional system (and if possible I agree), but unfortunately, many or even most of them (due to their terrible childhoods) are incorrigible. Unless locked up, they do not, will not or can not live productive lives within the bounds of the law….. And it is because of this ever-growing sub-caste of our society that we have so much crime, that we sentence so many people to prison, and that our prisons are endlessly overcrowded, despite our continually building new facilities for them.
As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.
“Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding.”
That doesn’t contravene what Mike Harrington said. His point, I think, is that we are sentencing too many people to prison for too long. I share this view.
However, it is complicated, because we have so many children growing up in screwed up families* who then go on to lead a life of crime as late teens and as adults. They might start out as petty drug dealers, but they progress to car theft, burglary, assault, gun crimes, gangsterism and so on. It’s easy to say we need to reform them earlier in the correctional system (and if possible I agree), but unfortunately, many or even most of them (due to their terrible childhoods) are incorrigible. Unless locked up, they do not, will not or can not live productive lives within the bounds of the law….. And it is because of this ever-growing sub-caste of our society that we have so much crime, that we sentence so many people to prison, and that our prisons are endlessly overcrowded, despite our continually building new facilities for them.
As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.
“Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding.”
That doesn’t contravene what Mike Harrington said. His point, I think, is that we are sentencing too many people to prison for too long. I share this view.
However, it is complicated, because we have so many children growing up in screwed up families* who then go on to lead a life of crime as late teens and as adults. They might start out as petty drug dealers, but they progress to car theft, burglary, assault, gun crimes, gangsterism and so on. It’s easy to say we need to reform them earlier in the correctional system (and if possible I agree), but unfortunately, many or even most of them (due to their terrible childhoods) are incorrigible. Unless locked up, they do not, will not or can not live productive lives within the bounds of the law….. And it is because of this ever-growing sub-caste of our society that we have so much crime, that we sentence so many people to prison, and that our prisons are endlessly overcrowded, despite our continually building new facilities for them.
As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.
“Actually, the state is releasing people before the end of their terms per the recent article in the Bee, to relieve overcrowding.”
That doesn’t contravene what Mike Harrington said. His point, I think, is that we are sentencing too many people to prison for too long. I share this view.
However, it is complicated, because we have so many children growing up in screwed up families* who then go on to lead a life of crime as late teens and as adults. They might start out as petty drug dealers, but they progress to car theft, burglary, assault, gun crimes, gangsterism and so on. It’s easy to say we need to reform them earlier in the correctional system (and if possible I agree), but unfortunately, many or even most of them (due to their terrible childhoods) are incorrigible. Unless locked up, they do not, will not or can not live productive lives within the bounds of the law….. And it is because of this ever-growing sub-caste of our society that we have so much crime, that we sentence so many people to prison, and that our prisons are endlessly overcrowded, despite our continually building new facilities for them.
As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.
This morning in front of a farm on Russell Boulevard just east of Road 96 I saw a printed sign — maybe 2′ x 3′ — which read, “No Prison at County Airport.” I suspect there are lots of those signs in that area of the county.
Also, a few weeks ago, while I was driving home through Dunnigan on I-5, I saw signs there opposing the re-entry facility.
This morning in front of a farm on Russell Boulevard just east of Road 96 I saw a printed sign — maybe 2′ x 3′ — which read, “No Prison at County Airport.” I suspect there are lots of those signs in that area of the county.
Also, a few weeks ago, while I was driving home through Dunnigan on I-5, I saw signs there opposing the re-entry facility.
This morning in front of a farm on Russell Boulevard just east of Road 96 I saw a printed sign — maybe 2′ x 3′ — which read, “No Prison at County Airport.” I suspect there are lots of those signs in that area of the county.
Also, a few weeks ago, while I was driving home through Dunnigan on I-5, I saw signs there opposing the re-entry facility.
This morning in front of a farm on Russell Boulevard just east of Road 96 I saw a printed sign — maybe 2′ x 3′ — which read, “No Prison at County Airport.” I suspect there are lots of those signs in that area of the county.
Also, a few weeks ago, while I was driving home through Dunnigan on I-5, I saw signs there opposing the re-entry facility.
Rich Rifkin said “As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.”
My blood runs cold when I read ‘solutions’ like this. Life is meaningless without love, no matter how much money you have or how satisfying your career. Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone? Please don’t forget that Jesse Jackson was born to a poor, unwed 15 year old. Barack Obama’s mother was 18. THERE ARE OTHER, BETTER, SOLUTIONS!
Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there. If we legalized all drugs, (not decriminalized, but legalized)
and sold them at package stores like they do liquor in some states, we could earn tax money, provide information on where to detox or get treatment for those who wanted it, and eliminate a huge criminal industry. the arguments against this are really too ridiculous considering the price we are paying under the current system. This solution of mine is unrealistic only because the amounts of money are so big that those invested probably have ‘insured’ that their business will continue by their power over elected officials who could actually help make the change. But, the voters can and do have the final say.
As far as the re-entry facility is concerned, isn’t there some room right next to the current Yolo County Jail? who could object to that? It is near I-5 and public transportation.
Rich Rifkin said “As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.”
My blood runs cold when I read ‘solutions’ like this. Life is meaningless without love, no matter how much money you have or how satisfying your career. Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone? Please don’t forget that Jesse Jackson was born to a poor, unwed 15 year old. Barack Obama’s mother was 18. THERE ARE OTHER, BETTER, SOLUTIONS!
Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there. If we legalized all drugs, (not decriminalized, but legalized)
and sold them at package stores like they do liquor in some states, we could earn tax money, provide information on where to detox or get treatment for those who wanted it, and eliminate a huge criminal industry. the arguments against this are really too ridiculous considering the price we are paying under the current system. This solution of mine is unrealistic only because the amounts of money are so big that those invested probably have ‘insured’ that their business will continue by their power over elected officials who could actually help make the change. But, the voters can and do have the final say.
As far as the re-entry facility is concerned, isn’t there some room right next to the current Yolo County Jail? who could object to that? It is near I-5 and public transportation.
Rich Rifkin said “As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.”
My blood runs cold when I read ‘solutions’ like this. Life is meaningless without love, no matter how much money you have or how satisfying your career. Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone? Please don’t forget that Jesse Jackson was born to a poor, unwed 15 year old. Barack Obama’s mother was 18. THERE ARE OTHER, BETTER, SOLUTIONS!
Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there. If we legalized all drugs, (not decriminalized, but legalized)
and sold them at package stores like they do liquor in some states, we could earn tax money, provide information on where to detox or get treatment for those who wanted it, and eliminate a huge criminal industry. the arguments against this are really too ridiculous considering the price we are paying under the current system. This solution of mine is unrealistic only because the amounts of money are so big that those invested probably have ‘insured’ that their business will continue by their power over elected officials who could actually help make the change. But, the voters can and do have the final say.
As far as the re-entry facility is concerned, isn’t there some room right next to the current Yolo County Jail? who could object to that? It is near I-5 and public transportation.
Rich Rifkin said “As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.”
My blood runs cold when I read ‘solutions’ like this. Life is meaningless without love, no matter how much money you have or how satisfying your career. Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone? Please don’t forget that Jesse Jackson was born to a poor, unwed 15 year old. Barack Obama’s mother was 18. THERE ARE OTHER, BETTER, SOLUTIONS!
Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there. If we legalized all drugs, (not decriminalized, but legalized)
and sold them at package stores like they do liquor in some states, we could earn tax money, provide information on where to detox or get treatment for those who wanted it, and eliminate a huge criminal industry. the arguments against this are really too ridiculous considering the price we are paying under the current system. This solution of mine is unrealistic only because the amounts of money are so big that those invested probably have ‘insured’ that their business will continue by their power over elected officials who could actually help make the change. But, the voters can and do have the final say.
As far as the re-entry facility is concerned, isn’t there some room right next to the current Yolo County Jail? who could object to that? It is near I-5 and public transportation.
The state prisons should be handling the “re-entry” needs in or next to their exisiting facilities. Also, isn’t probation supposed to be that half-step? The re-entry facility, by its very nature, is a stark condemnation of the current prison and probation system.
I think the re-entry facilities are a cynical method for the state to avoid its responsibility for locking up nearly everyone with a problem and being unable to deal with the consequences of that “tough on crime” criminal justice system.
I have not verified this, but I think I read somewhere that about 4/5ths of a federal judge’s docket is comprised of drug cases. I dont know what the numbers are for state court prosecutions, but it has got to be very high.
I am opposed to the re-entry facility, anywhere.
And I think that the County is using the re-entry facility justification as “liberal feel good” to get money to expand a jail that is probably mostly filled with drug cases.
The state prisons should be handling the “re-entry” needs in or next to their exisiting facilities. Also, isn’t probation supposed to be that half-step? The re-entry facility, by its very nature, is a stark condemnation of the current prison and probation system.
I think the re-entry facilities are a cynical method for the state to avoid its responsibility for locking up nearly everyone with a problem and being unable to deal with the consequences of that “tough on crime” criminal justice system.
I have not verified this, but I think I read somewhere that about 4/5ths of a federal judge’s docket is comprised of drug cases. I dont know what the numbers are for state court prosecutions, but it has got to be very high.
I am opposed to the re-entry facility, anywhere.
And I think that the County is using the re-entry facility justification as “liberal feel good” to get money to expand a jail that is probably mostly filled with drug cases.
The state prisons should be handling the “re-entry” needs in or next to their exisiting facilities. Also, isn’t probation supposed to be that half-step? The re-entry facility, by its very nature, is a stark condemnation of the current prison and probation system.
I think the re-entry facilities are a cynical method for the state to avoid its responsibility for locking up nearly everyone with a problem and being unable to deal with the consequences of that “tough on crime” criminal justice system.
I have not verified this, but I think I read somewhere that about 4/5ths of a federal judge’s docket is comprised of drug cases. I dont know what the numbers are for state court prosecutions, but it has got to be very high.
I am opposed to the re-entry facility, anywhere.
And I think that the County is using the re-entry facility justification as “liberal feel good” to get money to expand a jail that is probably mostly filled with drug cases.
The state prisons should be handling the “re-entry” needs in or next to their exisiting facilities. Also, isn’t probation supposed to be that half-step? The re-entry facility, by its very nature, is a stark condemnation of the current prison and probation system.
I think the re-entry facilities are a cynical method for the state to avoid its responsibility for locking up nearly everyone with a problem and being unable to deal with the consequences of that “tough on crime” criminal justice system.
I have not verified this, but I think I read somewhere that about 4/5ths of a federal judge’s docket is comprised of drug cases. I dont know what the numbers are for state court prosecutions, but it has got to be very high.
I am opposed to the re-entry facility, anywhere.
And I think that the County is using the re-entry facility justification as “liberal feel good” to get money to expand a jail that is probably mostly filled with drug cases.
DPD or anyone: have some stats you can post on the types of offenses putting people in our county jail? and the state prison system in general?
I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?
The re-entry facilities simply allow the prisons to stuff more prisoners into the system, without having to build another full prison with all the stigma that goes with that facility in a local community.
Dear Helen and Mariko: don’t fall for this right wing program! Vote NO today.
DPD or anyone: have some stats you can post on the types of offenses putting people in our county jail? and the state prison system in general?
I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?
The re-entry facilities simply allow the prisons to stuff more prisoners into the system, without having to build another full prison with all the stigma that goes with that facility in a local community.
Dear Helen and Mariko: don’t fall for this right wing program! Vote NO today.
DPD or anyone: have some stats you can post on the types of offenses putting people in our county jail? and the state prison system in general?
I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?
The re-entry facilities simply allow the prisons to stuff more prisoners into the system, without having to build another full prison with all the stigma that goes with that facility in a local community.
Dear Helen and Mariko: don’t fall for this right wing program! Vote NO today.
DPD or anyone: have some stats you can post on the types of offenses putting people in our county jail? and the state prison system in general?
I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?
The re-entry facilities simply allow the prisons to stuff more prisoners into the system, without having to build another full prison with all the stigma that goes with that facility in a local community.
Dear Helen and Mariko: don’t fall for this right wing program! Vote NO today.
“As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.”
This is really an outrageous statement for so many reasons. So let me calmly point out a few things (altho I could mention a good deal more).
1) Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution? Last time I looked, most folks in prison are men. Why not pay males $35,000 to become sterilized? What a sexist statement! Furthermore, who is going to decide what 18 year old child grew up in “screwed up circumstances” and is thus eligible for such largesse? How do you define that term? I assure you, many a kid from a good family turned out rotten, and vice versa.
2) What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births? A society that believes in ambiguity when it comes to the concept of marriage. No longer is marriage socially necessary to bring up a child. More and more young couples are having children outside of marriage, which is considered acceptable. How can a couple “living together”, who are not even committed to each other, be committed to the longterm commitment of raising a child?
3) What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment? On television and in movies sex is had as if it were nothing more than a handshake. Our own former president misled children into thinking “oral sex” is not “sex”. Never before his pecadillos did students perform oral sex inside a school bus. Up until his misdeeds it was unheard of to do such a naughty and disgusting thing.
4) What are we doing about the proliferation of drugs, and making the abuse of alcohol unacceptable? Drunken routs at colleges are the norm, not the exception. Most crime is committed by criminals high on either drugs or alcohol – including armed robbery, rape and murder. Rapes on campus are common, and often perpetrated by other students.
Very few times is throwing money at a problem the better solution. We as a society have to decide we are going to stop listening to the mixed messages we are getting from European nations (who have legalized drugs; condoned mistresses for years), our enemies, the porn industry, Hollywood and the like.
We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child. (And don’t let this discussion digress into the gay marriage issue, which is irrelevant to what I am talking about.)
On a more personal note, I was married to a man who committed adultery with his oldest daughter’s elementary school teacher, when I was pregnant with out third child. I have seen the awful results of the damage that is done by a parent who is not committed to a marriage or the children. My eldest daughter became anorexic, another child had to go through anger management classes, both my girls became involved with abusive boyfriends, trying to find the love they did not receive from their father. Would you offer them sterilization as a solution? They are now all productive citizens, yet had a terrible childhood.
Parents today are up against it, trying to teach their children right from wrong, while the message sent out by Hollywood is “go ahead and have sex anytime, anywhere”. Single parents have no emotional support, and face raising children in a corrupt society with little assistance from schools, who teach kids nothing more than how to use a condom. “Dirty dancing” happens at almost every school prom. Girls are expected to “put out” in exchange for the price paid for the prom ticket by their date.
Color me disgusted with today’s societal mores. They are very wanting, and detrimental to our children.
“As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.”
This is really an outrageous statement for so many reasons. So let me calmly point out a few things (altho I could mention a good deal more).
1) Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution? Last time I looked, most folks in prison are men. Why not pay males $35,000 to become sterilized? What a sexist statement! Furthermore, who is going to decide what 18 year old child grew up in “screwed up circumstances” and is thus eligible for such largesse? How do you define that term? I assure you, many a kid from a good family turned out rotten, and vice versa.
2) What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births? A society that believes in ambiguity when it comes to the concept of marriage. No longer is marriage socially necessary to bring up a child. More and more young couples are having children outside of marriage, which is considered acceptable. How can a couple “living together”, who are not even committed to each other, be committed to the longterm commitment of raising a child?
3) What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment? On television and in movies sex is had as if it were nothing more than a handshake. Our own former president misled children into thinking “oral sex” is not “sex”. Never before his pecadillos did students perform oral sex inside a school bus. Up until his misdeeds it was unheard of to do such a naughty and disgusting thing.
4) What are we doing about the proliferation of drugs, and making the abuse of alcohol unacceptable? Drunken routs at colleges are the norm, not the exception. Most crime is committed by criminals high on either drugs or alcohol – including armed robbery, rape and murder. Rapes on campus are common, and often perpetrated by other students.
Very few times is throwing money at a problem the better solution. We as a society have to decide we are going to stop listening to the mixed messages we are getting from European nations (who have legalized drugs; condoned mistresses for years), our enemies, the porn industry, Hollywood and the like.
We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child. (And don’t let this discussion digress into the gay marriage issue, which is irrelevant to what I am talking about.)
On a more personal note, I was married to a man who committed adultery with his oldest daughter’s elementary school teacher, when I was pregnant with out third child. I have seen the awful results of the damage that is done by a parent who is not committed to a marriage or the children. My eldest daughter became anorexic, another child had to go through anger management classes, both my girls became involved with abusive boyfriends, trying to find the love they did not receive from their father. Would you offer them sterilization as a solution? They are now all productive citizens, yet had a terrible childhood.
Parents today are up against it, trying to teach their children right from wrong, while the message sent out by Hollywood is “go ahead and have sex anytime, anywhere”. Single parents have no emotional support, and face raising children in a corrupt society with little assistance from schools, who teach kids nothing more than how to use a condom. “Dirty dancing” happens at almost every school prom. Girls are expected to “put out” in exchange for the price paid for the prom ticket by their date.
Color me disgusted with today’s societal mores. They are very wanting, and detrimental to our children.
“As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.”
This is really an outrageous statement for so many reasons. So let me calmly point out a few things (altho I could mention a good deal more).
1) Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution? Last time I looked, most folks in prison are men. Why not pay males $35,000 to become sterilized? What a sexist statement! Furthermore, who is going to decide what 18 year old child grew up in “screwed up circumstances” and is thus eligible for such largesse? How do you define that term? I assure you, many a kid from a good family turned out rotten, and vice versa.
2) What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births? A society that believes in ambiguity when it comes to the concept of marriage. No longer is marriage socially necessary to bring up a child. More and more young couples are having children outside of marriage, which is considered acceptable. How can a couple “living together”, who are not even committed to each other, be committed to the longterm commitment of raising a child?
3) What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment? On television and in movies sex is had as if it were nothing more than a handshake. Our own former president misled children into thinking “oral sex” is not “sex”. Never before his pecadillos did students perform oral sex inside a school bus. Up until his misdeeds it was unheard of to do such a naughty and disgusting thing.
4) What are we doing about the proliferation of drugs, and making the abuse of alcohol unacceptable? Drunken routs at colleges are the norm, not the exception. Most crime is committed by criminals high on either drugs or alcohol – including armed robbery, rape and murder. Rapes on campus are common, and often perpetrated by other students.
Very few times is throwing money at a problem the better solution. We as a society have to decide we are going to stop listening to the mixed messages we are getting from European nations (who have legalized drugs; condoned mistresses for years), our enemies, the porn industry, Hollywood and the like.
We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child. (And don’t let this discussion digress into the gay marriage issue, which is irrelevant to what I am talking about.)
On a more personal note, I was married to a man who committed adultery with his oldest daughter’s elementary school teacher, when I was pregnant with out third child. I have seen the awful results of the damage that is done by a parent who is not committed to a marriage or the children. My eldest daughter became anorexic, another child had to go through anger management classes, both my girls became involved with abusive boyfriends, trying to find the love they did not receive from their father. Would you offer them sterilization as a solution? They are now all productive citizens, yet had a terrible childhood.
Parents today are up against it, trying to teach their children right from wrong, while the message sent out by Hollywood is “go ahead and have sex anytime, anywhere”. Single parents have no emotional support, and face raising children in a corrupt society with little assistance from schools, who teach kids nothing more than how to use a condom. “Dirty dancing” happens at almost every school prom. Girls are expected to “put out” in exchange for the price paid for the prom ticket by their date.
Color me disgusted with today’s societal mores. They are very wanting, and detrimental to our children.
“As I suggested once in a column, the best solution to this problem is to pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35,000, the amount it costs to house 1 prisoner for 1 year in California, to be sterilized once she reaches age 18. Sounds harsh, but it will work and it will make the woman’s life better.
* The numbers for whites and Asians are terrible in this regard. However, for blacks and Latinos it is much, much worse. More than 70 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock and more than 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. For Latinos, 45 percent are born to unmarried parents…. Also, there is a very strong correlation between crime rates, illegitimate birth and fatherless child-rearing.”
This is really an outrageous statement for so many reasons. So let me calmly point out a few things (altho I could mention a good deal more).
1) Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution? Last time I looked, most folks in prison are men. Why not pay males $35,000 to become sterilized? What a sexist statement! Furthermore, who is going to decide what 18 year old child grew up in “screwed up circumstances” and is thus eligible for such largesse? How do you define that term? I assure you, many a kid from a good family turned out rotten, and vice versa.
2) What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births? A society that believes in ambiguity when it comes to the concept of marriage. No longer is marriage socially necessary to bring up a child. More and more young couples are having children outside of marriage, which is considered acceptable. How can a couple “living together”, who are not even committed to each other, be committed to the longterm commitment of raising a child?
3) What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment? On television and in movies sex is had as if it were nothing more than a handshake. Our own former president misled children into thinking “oral sex” is not “sex”. Never before his pecadillos did students perform oral sex inside a school bus. Up until his misdeeds it was unheard of to do such a naughty and disgusting thing.
4) What are we doing about the proliferation of drugs, and making the abuse of alcohol unacceptable? Drunken routs at colleges are the norm, not the exception. Most crime is committed by criminals high on either drugs or alcohol – including armed robbery, rape and murder. Rapes on campus are common, and often perpetrated by other students.
Very few times is throwing money at a problem the better solution. We as a society have to decide we are going to stop listening to the mixed messages we are getting from European nations (who have legalized drugs; condoned mistresses for years), our enemies, the porn industry, Hollywood and the like.
We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child. (And don’t let this discussion digress into the gay marriage issue, which is irrelevant to what I am talking about.)
On a more personal note, I was married to a man who committed adultery with his oldest daughter’s elementary school teacher, when I was pregnant with out third child. I have seen the awful results of the damage that is done by a parent who is not committed to a marriage or the children. My eldest daughter became anorexic, another child had to go through anger management classes, both my girls became involved with abusive boyfriends, trying to find the love they did not receive from their father. Would you offer them sterilization as a solution? They are now all productive citizens, yet had a terrible childhood.
Parents today are up against it, trying to teach their children right from wrong, while the message sent out by Hollywood is “go ahead and have sex anytime, anywhere”. Single parents have no emotional support, and face raising children in a corrupt society with little assistance from schools, who teach kids nothing more than how to use a condom. “Dirty dancing” happens at almost every school prom. Girls are expected to “put out” in exchange for the price paid for the prom ticket by their date.
Color me disgusted with today’s societal mores. They are very wanting, and detrimental to our children.
“I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?”
Be careful when you compare stats on this. China and Russia are known for instituting capital punishment for much lesser crimes than we would, to ensure prisoners are cooperative, and their country’s respective crime rates are low.
I’m not certain whether we incarcerate too many. What I do know is once in prison, inmates should be working if at all possible, to help defray the costs to taxpayers of their incarceration.
“I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?”
Be careful when you compare stats on this. China and Russia are known for instituting capital punishment for much lesser crimes than we would, to ensure prisoners are cooperative, and their country’s respective crime rates are low.
I’m not certain whether we incarcerate too many. What I do know is once in prison, inmates should be working if at all possible, to help defray the costs to taxpayers of their incarceration.
“I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?”
Be careful when you compare stats on this. China and Russia are known for instituting capital punishment for much lesser crimes than we would, to ensure prisoners are cooperative, and their country’s respective crime rates are low.
I’m not certain whether we incarcerate too many. What I do know is once in prison, inmates should be working if at all possible, to help defray the costs to taxpayers of their incarceration.
“I’ve read somewhere that the United States may be locking up a higher percentage of its population than even Communist China or Russia. Anyone know the stats for this?”
Be careful when you compare stats on this. China and Russia are known for instituting capital punishment for much lesser crimes than we would, to ensure prisoners are cooperative, and their country’s respective crime rates are low.
I’m not certain whether we incarcerate too many. What I do know is once in prison, inmates should be working if at all possible, to help defray the costs to taxpayers of their incarceration.
Mike,
Incarceration rate per 100,000 by country is
US 757
Russia 610
South Africa 320
I think there are a lot of non-violent offenders clogging up the system and we can find other means to deal with their ‘crimes’
Mike,
Incarceration rate per 100,000 by country is
US 757
Russia 610
South Africa 320
I think there are a lot of non-violent offenders clogging up the system and we can find other means to deal with their ‘crimes’
Mike,
Incarceration rate per 100,000 by country is
US 757
Russia 610
South Africa 320
I think there are a lot of non-violent offenders clogging up the system and we can find other means to deal with their ‘crimes’
Mike,
Incarceration rate per 100,000 by country is
US 757
Russia 610
South Africa 320
I think there are a lot of non-violent offenders clogging up the system and we can find other means to deal with their ‘crimes’
Folks it is very simple: you can disagree with Rich Rifkin, you can argue against him, but any derogatory comments towards him (or anyone else who posts here) will be erased as soon as they are read by myself or one of the moderators.
Folks it is very simple: you can disagree with Rich Rifkin, you can argue against him, but any derogatory comments towards him (or anyone else who posts here) will be erased as soon as they are read by myself or one of the moderators.
Folks it is very simple: you can disagree with Rich Rifkin, you can argue against him, but any derogatory comments towards him (or anyone else who posts here) will be erased as soon as they are read by myself or one of the moderators.
Folks it is very simple: you can disagree with Rich Rifkin, you can argue against him, but any derogatory comments towards him (or anyone else who posts here) will be erased as soon as they are read by myself or one of the moderators.
I think we should go back to the 150 bed re-entry facility right next to the Yolo County Jail. 500 beds is too big and has the potential of being a real problem for the County when the funding for the project runs out. Lower risk can be paroled directly into community services. The higher risk can spend a year in the re-entry facility before being paroled to the same services.
I think we should go back to the 150 bed re-entry facility right next to the Yolo County Jail. 500 beds is too big and has the potential of being a real problem for the County when the funding for the project runs out. Lower risk can be paroled directly into community services. The higher risk can spend a year in the re-entry facility before being paroled to the same services.
I think we should go back to the 150 bed re-entry facility right next to the Yolo County Jail. 500 beds is too big and has the potential of being a real problem for the County when the funding for the project runs out. Lower risk can be paroled directly into community services. The higher risk can spend a year in the re-entry facility before being paroled to the same services.
I think we should go back to the 150 bed re-entry facility right next to the Yolo County Jail. 500 beds is too big and has the potential of being a real problem for the County when the funding for the project runs out. Lower risk can be paroled directly into community services. The higher risk can spend a year in the re-entry facility before being paroled to the same services.
That’s not something we have control over. The size of the facility is dictated by the state.
That’s not something we have control over. The size of the facility is dictated by the state.
That’s not something we have control over. The size of the facility is dictated by the state.
That’s not something we have control over. The size of the facility is dictated by the state.
“just so everyone knows, it is acceptable here to advocate eugenics, but not acceptable to condemn the people who do so”
Just so everyone knows by the person who actually runs this blog it is acceptable to advocate a political position on this blog that is unpopular, it is unacceptable to make personally derisive statements in response. You can attack the logic but you cannot call people names or say any number of things that Richard Estes said in his post that I will not repeat here. That goes for anyone.
“just so everyone knows, it is acceptable here to advocate eugenics, but not acceptable to condemn the people who do so”
Just so everyone knows by the person who actually runs this blog it is acceptable to advocate a political position on this blog that is unpopular, it is unacceptable to make personally derisive statements in response. You can attack the logic but you cannot call people names or say any number of things that Richard Estes said in his post that I will not repeat here. That goes for anyone.
“just so everyone knows, it is acceptable here to advocate eugenics, but not acceptable to condemn the people who do so”
Just so everyone knows by the person who actually runs this blog it is acceptable to advocate a political position on this blog that is unpopular, it is unacceptable to make personally derisive statements in response. You can attack the logic but you cannot call people names or say any number of things that Richard Estes said in his post that I will not repeat here. That goes for anyone.
“just so everyone knows, it is acceptable here to advocate eugenics, but not acceptable to condemn the people who do so”
Just so everyone knows by the person who actually runs this blog it is acceptable to advocate a political position on this blog that is unpopular, it is unacceptable to make personally derisive statements in response. You can attack the logic but you cannot call people names or say any number of things that Richard Estes said in his post that I will not repeat here. That goes for anyone.
In response to Richard Estes’ other point:
“apparently, it is OK to advocate eugenics in the abstract, against the “other”, but not against someone who has put their hatred towards poor and disadvantaged people on the record, and, if you find it offensive to say this about Rich and his mother, isn’t it likewise equally, if not more offensive, to say it about people in the aggregate? but, apparently not, because Rifkin’s remarks remain here, while mine were taken down”
That is correct you can advocate for eugenics the abstract, if you advocate for eugenics against a poster on this forum, the message will be taken down. I know you are perfectly capable of making a logical argument against Rich Rifkin’s comment without resorting to these tactics.
In response to Richard Estes’ other point:
“apparently, it is OK to advocate eugenics in the abstract, against the “other”, but not against someone who has put their hatred towards poor and disadvantaged people on the record, and, if you find it offensive to say this about Rich and his mother, isn’t it likewise equally, if not more offensive, to say it about people in the aggregate? but, apparently not, because Rifkin’s remarks remain here, while mine were taken down”
That is correct you can advocate for eugenics the abstract, if you advocate for eugenics against a poster on this forum, the message will be taken down. I know you are perfectly capable of making a logical argument against Rich Rifkin’s comment without resorting to these tactics.
In response to Richard Estes’ other point:
“apparently, it is OK to advocate eugenics in the abstract, against the “other”, but not against someone who has put their hatred towards poor and disadvantaged people on the record, and, if you find it offensive to say this about Rich and his mother, isn’t it likewise equally, if not more offensive, to say it about people in the aggregate? but, apparently not, because Rifkin’s remarks remain here, while mine were taken down”
That is correct you can advocate for eugenics the abstract, if you advocate for eugenics against a poster on this forum, the message will be taken down. I know you are perfectly capable of making a logical argument against Rich Rifkin’s comment without resorting to these tactics.
In response to Richard Estes’ other point:
“apparently, it is OK to advocate eugenics in the abstract, against the “other”, but not against someone who has put their hatred towards poor and disadvantaged people on the record, and, if you find it offensive to say this about Rich and his mother, isn’t it likewise equally, if not more offensive, to say it about people in the aggregate? but, apparently not, because Rifkin’s remarks remain here, while mine were taken down”
That is correct you can advocate for eugenics the abstract, if you advocate for eugenics against a poster on this forum, the message will be taken down. I know you are perfectly capable of making a logical argument against Rich Rifkin’s comment without resorting to these tactics.
What part of my post was so offensive that it was taken down that I called him a neo-eugenicist or the Sig Heil part? Its not like I was using profanity. Did I use any of the seven forbidden words as George Carlin would say?
So let me get this straight DPD. Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.
What part of my post was so offensive that it was taken down that I called him a neo-eugenicist or the Sig Heil part? Its not like I was using profanity. Did I use any of the seven forbidden words as George Carlin would say?
So let me get this straight DPD. Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.
What part of my post was so offensive that it was taken down that I called him a neo-eugenicist or the Sig Heil part? Its not like I was using profanity. Did I use any of the seven forbidden words as George Carlin would say?
So let me get this straight DPD. Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.
What part of my post was so offensive that it was taken down that I called him a neo-eugenicist or the Sig Heil part? Its not like I was using profanity. Did I use any of the seven forbidden words as George Carlin would say?
So let me get this straight DPD. Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.
Nope that’s not what I’m saying at all. There will be no name-calling or personal attacks. I will not censor people’s opinions no matter how reprehensible they are or how much I personally disagree with them.
Nope that’s not what I’m saying at all. There will be no name-calling or personal attacks. I will not censor people’s opinions no matter how reprehensible they are or how much I personally disagree with them.
Nope that’s not what I’m saying at all. There will be no name-calling or personal attacks. I will not censor people’s opinions no matter how reprehensible they are or how much I personally disagree with them.
Nope that’s not what I’m saying at all. There will be no name-calling or personal attacks. I will not censor people’s opinions no matter how reprehensible they are or how much I personally disagree with them.
Where was it, I forget, some third world country where they offered women transistor radios to be sterilyzed. Oh yeah whatever the market will bear, $35,000 or transistor radios. At least the Chinese have a no second child policy as opposed to the racist poster who wants to use capitalism to deny the most fundamental human right, the right to reproduce, to poor people and people of color who have a background the poster finds disdainful.
Where was it, I forget, some third world country where they offered women transistor radios to be sterilyzed. Oh yeah whatever the market will bear, $35,000 or transistor radios. At least the Chinese have a no second child policy as opposed to the racist poster who wants to use capitalism to deny the most fundamental human right, the right to reproduce, to poor people and people of color who have a background the poster finds disdainful.
Where was it, I forget, some third world country where they offered women transistor radios to be sterilyzed. Oh yeah whatever the market will bear, $35,000 or transistor radios. At least the Chinese have a no second child policy as opposed to the racist poster who wants to use capitalism to deny the most fundamental human right, the right to reproduce, to poor people and people of color who have a background the poster finds disdainful.
Where was it, I forget, some third world country where they offered women transistor radios to be sterilyzed. Oh yeah whatever the market will bear, $35,000 or transistor radios. At least the Chinese have a no second child policy as opposed to the racist poster who wants to use capitalism to deny the most fundamental human right, the right to reproduce, to poor people and people of color who have a background the poster finds disdainful.
DPD: I don’t respond to eugenics advocates with “logic”, because that’s not what they are about, there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you
there is a game going on here that you don’t seem to recognize, that people like Rifkin seek to legitimize their reprehensible views by first making them an acceptable form of policy discussion, then the discussion becomes, well, what social problems, if any, would justify such a draconian solution, maybe not here, but maybe there, sort of the way Alan Dershowitz has manipulated the debate about torture in the country
I don’t go down that path, while you do, because I recognize that Rifkin is wrapping his bigotries in the garb of intellectual discourse, much as Charles Murray did with The Bell Curve, the way Watson has done in regard to purported genetic inferiority of people of African descent, the way that fascists did with Jews and Slavs
anyway, I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage
–Richard Estes
DPD: I don’t respond to eugenics advocates with “logic”, because that’s not what they are about, there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you
there is a game going on here that you don’t seem to recognize, that people like Rifkin seek to legitimize their reprehensible views by first making them an acceptable form of policy discussion, then the discussion becomes, well, what social problems, if any, would justify such a draconian solution, maybe not here, but maybe there, sort of the way Alan Dershowitz has manipulated the debate about torture in the country
I don’t go down that path, while you do, because I recognize that Rifkin is wrapping his bigotries in the garb of intellectual discourse, much as Charles Murray did with The Bell Curve, the way Watson has done in regard to purported genetic inferiority of people of African descent, the way that fascists did with Jews and Slavs
anyway, I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage
–Richard Estes
DPD: I don’t respond to eugenics advocates with “logic”, because that’s not what they are about, there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you
there is a game going on here that you don’t seem to recognize, that people like Rifkin seek to legitimize their reprehensible views by first making them an acceptable form of policy discussion, then the discussion becomes, well, what social problems, if any, would justify such a draconian solution, maybe not here, but maybe there, sort of the way Alan Dershowitz has manipulated the debate about torture in the country
I don’t go down that path, while you do, because I recognize that Rifkin is wrapping his bigotries in the garb of intellectual discourse, much as Charles Murray did with The Bell Curve, the way Watson has done in regard to purported genetic inferiority of people of African descent, the way that fascists did with Jews and Slavs
anyway, I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage
–Richard Estes
DPD: I don’t respond to eugenics advocates with “logic”, because that’s not what they are about, there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you
there is a game going on here that you don’t seem to recognize, that people like Rifkin seek to legitimize their reprehensible views by first making them an acceptable form of policy discussion, then the discussion becomes, well, what social problems, if any, would justify such a draconian solution, maybe not here, but maybe there, sort of the way Alan Dershowitz has manipulated the debate about torture in the country
I don’t go down that path, while you do, because I recognize that Rifkin is wrapping his bigotries in the garb of intellectual discourse, much as Charles Murray did with The Bell Curve, the way Watson has done in regard to purported genetic inferiority of people of African descent, the way that fascists did with Jews and Slavs
anyway, I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage
–Richard Estes
Leave it to Richard to divert the conversation away from the actual issue. Who cares, Richard? Get over yourself.
So it’s Madison.
The people from Esparto have real problems with seething anger towards the County Board. The woman who said she ran prisons for men in other states and moved to Esparto to get far away from it was a real piece of work. The people from Davis area were predictable – send a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit, then explain in detail what they are thinking (in that order).
Leave it to Richard to divert the conversation away from the actual issue. Who cares, Richard? Get over yourself.
So it’s Madison.
The people from Esparto have real problems with seething anger towards the County Board. The woman who said she ran prisons for men in other states and moved to Esparto to get far away from it was a real piece of work. The people from Davis area were predictable – send a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit, then explain in detail what they are thinking (in that order).
Leave it to Richard to divert the conversation away from the actual issue. Who cares, Richard? Get over yourself.
So it’s Madison.
The people from Esparto have real problems with seething anger towards the County Board. The woman who said she ran prisons for men in other states and moved to Esparto to get far away from it was a real piece of work. The people from Davis area were predictable – send a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit, then explain in detail what they are thinking (in that order).
Leave it to Richard to divert the conversation away from the actual issue. Who cares, Richard? Get over yourself.
So it’s Madison.
The people from Esparto have real problems with seething anger towards the County Board. The woman who said she ran prisons for men in other states and moved to Esparto to get far away from it was a real piece of work. The people from Davis area were predictable – send a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit, then explain in detail what they are thinking (in that order).
I’ll have more detailed comments tomorrow morning, but I was impressed with the way the meeting was run, the good questions asked by supervisors, etc. Some of the people let their emotions get the better of them, that’s too bad. Overall pretty interesting.
I’ll have more detailed comments tomorrow morning, but I was impressed with the way the meeting was run, the good questions asked by supervisors, etc. Some of the people let their emotions get the better of them, that’s too bad. Overall pretty interesting.
I’ll have more detailed comments tomorrow morning, but I was impressed with the way the meeting was run, the good questions asked by supervisors, etc. Some of the people let their emotions get the better of them, that’s too bad. Overall pretty interesting.
I’ll have more detailed comments tomorrow morning, but I was impressed with the way the meeting was run, the good questions asked by supervisors, etc. Some of the people let their emotions get the better of them, that’s too bad. Overall pretty interesting.
“Who cares Richard? Get over yourself.”
Well frankly I do. To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.
“Who cares Richard? Get over yourself.”
Well frankly I do. To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.
“Who cares Richard? Get over yourself.”
Well frankly I do. To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.
“Who cares Richard? Get over yourself.”
Well frankly I do. To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.
To Anon at 9/9/08,
It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.
To Anon at 9/9/08,
It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.
To Anon at 9/9/08,
It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.
To Anon at 9/9/08,
It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.
I have been away from this site all day, so I will briefly respond to the comments I see on this thread.
First, I do not advocate eugenics, nor have I ever done so in any forum. To conclude I have is a complete misread on my position.
“Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone?”
I don’t advocate (and never have advocated) “sterilizing the poor” or sterilizing “70% of African Americans.”
To repeat, I advocate offering a substantial amount of money ($35,000) to adult women to voluntarily be sterilized, only if those women grew up in seriously dysfunctional families, because the likelihood is very high that any children they bear will be dysfunctional in our society. Anyone who would prefer to not be sterilized would be completely free to make that choice.
“Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there.”
I have also written in favor of the regulation of the narcotics trade, much the way prostitution is regulated (and legal) in most of Nevada. I am strongly against prohibition schemes and agree that they are a big part of our crime problem. (However, legalizing drugs will not solve the huge underlying problems in our family structures, an issue which goes back as far as Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s seminal piece on this issue.)
“Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution?”
First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.
“What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births?”
This is a far too complicated question to answer in a blog post. But needless to say, there are a couple of big factors: 1) tradition. Prior to the huge rise of illigitimacy in the 1960s (which Moynihan noted then was plaguing much of black America), there was a traditional social stigma against an unmarried woman having a child. If she became pregnant out of wedlock, the traditional decision was to either put the baby up for adoption or marry the father. That tradition has broken down over the last 40-50 years; and
2) Economics. Before the explosion of the welfare state in the 1960s, most women were far more dependent on a husband for financial support. Our welfare system, for the poor, helped destroy the intact families, as women married to low-paid men were often as well off, or even better off, not being married. Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.
“What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment?”
While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families. The problem is that when this sex leads to unplanned pregnancies, the reaction of the parents — the men run away and the women rear the children alone — is not serving the best interests of the children, and then helps to spread dysfunction.
“We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Alas, it is easier said than done.
“Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.”
I have never made an overtly or covertly racist remark in my life. If you believe I have, you have completely misunderstood my words, or you have chosen to skew them in such a way (in your own head) that my actual words have no meaning.
I have been away from this site all day, so I will briefly respond to the comments I see on this thread.
First, I do not advocate eugenics, nor have I ever done so in any forum. To conclude I have is a complete misread on my position.
“Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone?”
I don’t advocate (and never have advocated) “sterilizing the poor” or sterilizing “70% of African Americans.”
To repeat, I advocate offering a substantial amount of money ($35,000) to adult women to voluntarily be sterilized, only if those women grew up in seriously dysfunctional families, because the likelihood is very high that any children they bear will be dysfunctional in our society. Anyone who would prefer to not be sterilized would be completely free to make that choice.
“Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there.”
I have also written in favor of the regulation of the narcotics trade, much the way prostitution is regulated (and legal) in most of Nevada. I am strongly against prohibition schemes and agree that they are a big part of our crime problem. (However, legalizing drugs will not solve the huge underlying problems in our family structures, an issue which goes back as far as Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s seminal piece on this issue.)
“Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution?”
First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.
“What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births?”
This is a far too complicated question to answer in a blog post. But needless to say, there are a couple of big factors: 1) tradition. Prior to the huge rise of illigitimacy in the 1960s (which Moynihan noted then was plaguing much of black America), there was a traditional social stigma against an unmarried woman having a child. If she became pregnant out of wedlock, the traditional decision was to either put the baby up for adoption or marry the father. That tradition has broken down over the last 40-50 years; and
2) Economics. Before the explosion of the welfare state in the 1960s, most women were far more dependent on a husband for financial support. Our welfare system, for the poor, helped destroy the intact families, as women married to low-paid men were often as well off, or even better off, not being married. Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.
“What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment?”
While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families. The problem is that when this sex leads to unplanned pregnancies, the reaction of the parents — the men run away and the women rear the children alone — is not serving the best interests of the children, and then helps to spread dysfunction.
“We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Alas, it is easier said than done.
“Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.”
I have never made an overtly or covertly racist remark in my life. If you believe I have, you have completely misunderstood my words, or you have chosen to skew them in such a way (in your own head) that my actual words have no meaning.
I have been away from this site all day, so I will briefly respond to the comments I see on this thread.
First, I do not advocate eugenics, nor have I ever done so in any forum. To conclude I have is a complete misread on my position.
“Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone?”
I don’t advocate (and never have advocated) “sterilizing the poor” or sterilizing “70% of African Americans.”
To repeat, I advocate offering a substantial amount of money ($35,000) to adult women to voluntarily be sterilized, only if those women grew up in seriously dysfunctional families, because the likelihood is very high that any children they bear will be dysfunctional in our society. Anyone who would prefer to not be sterilized would be completely free to make that choice.
“Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there.”
I have also written in favor of the regulation of the narcotics trade, much the way prostitution is regulated (and legal) in most of Nevada. I am strongly against prohibition schemes and agree that they are a big part of our crime problem. (However, legalizing drugs will not solve the huge underlying problems in our family structures, an issue which goes back as far as Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s seminal piece on this issue.)
“Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution?”
First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.
“What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births?”
This is a far too complicated question to answer in a blog post. But needless to say, there are a couple of big factors: 1) tradition. Prior to the huge rise of illigitimacy in the 1960s (which Moynihan noted then was plaguing much of black America), there was a traditional social stigma against an unmarried woman having a child. If she became pregnant out of wedlock, the traditional decision was to either put the baby up for adoption or marry the father. That tradition has broken down over the last 40-50 years; and
2) Economics. Before the explosion of the welfare state in the 1960s, most women were far more dependent on a husband for financial support. Our welfare system, for the poor, helped destroy the intact families, as women married to low-paid men were often as well off, or even better off, not being married. Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.
“What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment?”
While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families. The problem is that when this sex leads to unplanned pregnancies, the reaction of the parents — the men run away and the women rear the children alone — is not serving the best interests of the children, and then helps to spread dysfunction.
“We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Alas, it is easier said than done.
“Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.”
I have never made an overtly or covertly racist remark in my life. If you believe I have, you have completely misunderstood my words, or you have chosen to skew them in such a way (in your own head) that my actual words have no meaning.
I have been away from this site all day, so I will briefly respond to the comments I see on this thread.
First, I do not advocate eugenics, nor have I ever done so in any forum. To conclude I have is a complete misread on my position.
“Sterilizing the poor? 70% African American? Doesn’t this ring a bell for anyone?”
I don’t advocate (and never have advocated) “sterilizing the poor” or sterilizing “70% of African Americans.”
To repeat, I advocate offering a substantial amount of money ($35,000) to adult women to voluntarily be sterilized, only if those women grew up in seriously dysfunctional families, because the likelihood is very high that any children they bear will be dysfunctional in our society. Anyone who would prefer to not be sterilized would be completely free to make that choice.
“Everyone knows this criminal subculture is fueled by the drug trade. Let’s look for a solution there.”
I have also written in favor of the regulation of the narcotics trade, much the way prostitution is regulated (and legal) in most of Nevada. I am strongly against prohibition schemes and agree that they are a big part of our crime problem. (However, legalizing drugs will not solve the huge underlying problems in our family structures, an issue which goes back as far as Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s seminal piece on this issue.)
“Why blame women for the problem of crime? Why make women bear the brunt of the solution?”
First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.
“What is the root problem of our out-of-wedlock births?”
This is a far too complicated question to answer in a blog post. But needless to say, there are a couple of big factors: 1) tradition. Prior to the huge rise of illigitimacy in the 1960s (which Moynihan noted then was plaguing much of black America), there was a traditional social stigma against an unmarried woman having a child. If she became pregnant out of wedlock, the traditional decision was to either put the baby up for adoption or marry the father. That tradition has broken down over the last 40-50 years; and
2) Economics. Before the explosion of the welfare state in the 1960s, most women were far more dependent on a husband for financial support. Our welfare system, for the poor, helped destroy the intact families, as women married to low-paid men were often as well off, or even better off, not being married. Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.
“What is society doing about the awful messages about sex being spewed out over our airwaves and in the movies theaters in the name of upholding the First Amendment?”
While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families. The problem is that when this sex leads to unplanned pregnancies, the reaction of the parents — the men run away and the women rear the children alone — is not serving the best interests of the children, and then helps to spread dysfunction.
“We need to go back to more traditional values, and not be afraid of being accused of being “prudes”. Marriage should be revered as an institution; as the best way to raise a child.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Alas, it is easier said than done.
“Its okay for Rifkin to make overtly racist remarks but we better be careful about how we respond because we don’t want to offend anyone.”
I have never made an overtly or covertly racist remark in my life. If you believe I have, you have completely misunderstood my words, or you have chosen to skew them in such a way (in your own head) that my actual words have no meaning.
“there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you”
Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life. I positively oppose any kind of forced sterilization or eugenics.
While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.
“I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage.”
Again, I do not and have never advocated eugenics, here or anywhere else. I have made no suggestions on the basis of genes or any other biological traits.
People who are individually unequipped to raise healthy, productive members of society come in all credes and colors. What makes them poorly equipped to raise children is the bad circumstances of their childhoods, not their genetic inheritance.
“there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you”
Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life. I positively oppose any kind of forced sterilization or eugenics.
While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.
“I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage.”
Again, I do not and have never advocated eugenics, here or anywhere else. I have made no suggestions on the basis of genes or any other biological traits.
People who are individually unequipped to raise healthy, productive members of society come in all credes and colors. What makes them poorly equipped to raise children is the bad circumstances of their childhoods, not their genetic inheritance.
“there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you”
Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life. I positively oppose any kind of forced sterilization or eugenics.
While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.
“I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage.”
Again, I do not and have never advocated eugenics, here or anywhere else. I have made no suggestions on the basis of genes or any other biological traits.
People who are individually unequipped to raise healthy, productive members of society come in all credes and colors. What makes them poorly equipped to raise children is the bad circumstances of their childhoods, not their genetic inheritance.
“there is nothing “logical” about advocating the sterilization of people different from yourself, it is about elitism, arrogance, hatred and bigotry towards people who have a background and social experience different than your own, an intention to exterminate them by denying them the right to produce because you consider them inferior to you”
Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life. I positively oppose any kind of forced sterilization or eugenics.
While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.
“I hope this works for you, allowing Rifkin to promote eugenics on the site, while taking the posts of people like me who express outrage.”
Again, I do not and have never advocated eugenics, here or anywhere else. I have made no suggestions on the basis of genes or any other biological traits.
People who are individually unequipped to raise healthy, productive members of society come in all credes and colors. What makes them poorly equipped to raise children is the bad circumstances of their childhoods, not their genetic inheritance.
“To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.”
Whoa, genocide?!
For the record, I oppose genocide. Sorry that Black Bart misunderstood.
“To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.”
Whoa, genocide?!
For the record, I oppose genocide. Sorry that Black Bart misunderstood.
“To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.”
Whoa, genocide?!
For the record, I oppose genocide. Sorry that Black Bart misunderstood.
“To prevent genocide, racism, whether it is cloaked in a hood or intellectual nonsense, must be confronted and exposed.”
Whoa, genocide?!
For the record, I oppose genocide. Sorry that Black Bart misunderstood.
“It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.”
In India under Indira Gandhi, they had a program of forced sterilizations. I strongly oppose that idea; and was abhorred when I learned of it (well after the fact).
“It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.”
In India under Indira Gandhi, they had a program of forced sterilizations. I strongly oppose that idea; and was abhorred when I learned of it (well after the fact).
“It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.”
In India under Indira Gandhi, they had a program of forced sterilizations. I strongly oppose that idea; and was abhorred when I learned of it (well after the fact).
“It was India that offered the transistor radios to Men not Women. By the way, that was about 35 years ago.”
In India under Indira Gandhi, they had a program of forced sterilizations. I strongly oppose that idea; and was abhorred when I learned of it (well after the fact).
Because some have chosen to pretend I said something I never did, I want to clarify one thing: social dysfunction is not due to poverty or to race or to genes.
Most people with very little money who are perfectly capable of raising well-adjusted children. This includes many unmarried mothers.
Race and genes do not cause dysfunction. Most people of all races can raise a healthy, productive, well-adjusted child.
So what then is an example of a young woman who ought to be offered a lot of money to not bear any children (after age 18)?
It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record.
That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.
Because some have chosen to pretend I said something I never did, I want to clarify one thing: social dysfunction is not due to poverty or to race or to genes.
Most people with very little money who are perfectly capable of raising well-adjusted children. This includes many unmarried mothers.
Race and genes do not cause dysfunction. Most people of all races can raise a healthy, productive, well-adjusted child.
So what then is an example of a young woman who ought to be offered a lot of money to not bear any children (after age 18)?
It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record.
That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.
Because some have chosen to pretend I said something I never did, I want to clarify one thing: social dysfunction is not due to poverty or to race or to genes.
Most people with very little money who are perfectly capable of raising well-adjusted children. This includes many unmarried mothers.
Race and genes do not cause dysfunction. Most people of all races can raise a healthy, productive, well-adjusted child.
So what then is an example of a young woman who ought to be offered a lot of money to not bear any children (after age 18)?
It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record.
That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.
Because some have chosen to pretend I said something I never did, I want to clarify one thing: social dysfunction is not due to poverty or to race or to genes.
Most people with very little money who are perfectly capable of raising well-adjusted children. This includes many unmarried mothers.
Race and genes do not cause dysfunction. Most people of all races can raise a healthy, productive, well-adjusted child.
So what then is an example of a young woman who ought to be offered a lot of money to not bear any children (after age 18)?
It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record.
That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.
Boy Rich, you just don’t get it and I’m not going to bother to explain it to you either. If you want to keep writing and keep making a fool of yourself go right ahead. I just can’t believe that you are not apologetic instead of trying to claim people didn’t understand you. We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.
Boy Rich, you just don’t get it and I’m not going to bother to explain it to you either. If you want to keep writing and keep making a fool of yourself go right ahead. I just can’t believe that you are not apologetic instead of trying to claim people didn’t understand you. We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.
Boy Rich, you just don’t get it and I’m not going to bother to explain it to you either. If you want to keep writing and keep making a fool of yourself go right ahead. I just can’t believe that you are not apologetic instead of trying to claim people didn’t understand you. We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.
Boy Rich, you just don’t get it and I’m not going to bother to explain it to you either. If you want to keep writing and keep making a fool of yourself go right ahead. I just can’t believe that you are not apologetic instead of trying to claim people didn’t understand you. We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.
Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized. Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post. That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying. Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible. That alone is something you should apologize for doing. You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.
Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there.
Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?
Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized. Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post. That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying. Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible. That alone is something you should apologize for doing. You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.
Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there.
Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?
Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized. Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post. That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying. Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible. That alone is something you should apologize for doing. You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.
Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there.
Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?
Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized. Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post. That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying. Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible. That alone is something you should apologize for doing. You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.
Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there.
Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?
“We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.”
That makes things clear.
“We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.”
That makes things clear.
“We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.”
That makes things clear.
“We understand you Rich, lexicon artist, we just find beneath that self indulgent writing style a level of arrogance that leads us right down the path to a final solution.”
That makes things clear.
“Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized.”
I never said that anyone “should be sterilized.” Your making that false accusation shows your argument is debile.
“Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post.”
You don’t know what “reason” is if that is your conclusion. You based your attack on a false premise; and then berated me for holding a position I don’t hold.
“That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying.”
That’s not true, unless you believe it is sexist of me to presume that females get pregnant, while males don’t. Otherwise, your conclusion reveals your incapacity to understand. Your calling me a “sexist,” when I am not, does not make me what you pretend I am.
“Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible.”
Explain to me what exactly is “reprehensible” about encouraging people who are unfit to be parents to not bear kids?
Just because you state this is reprehensible doesn’t makee it so. You have failed to prove your argument.
As far as Darwinism goes, that goes to the genetics argument which I never used, disagree with, and strongly oppose. Your assumption seems to be that if you pretend I wrote something, then it must be so.
“You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.”
Your inferences were all on your own, based on false assumptions. You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.
“Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there. “
Finally, once again, you failed to prove your point(s). If you don’t know how to make a logical argument, just stick to your ad hominem attacks.
“Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?”
I presume it is because you can’t make a rational argument based on facts, so you calumniate me, hoping such ad hominem attacks will suffice.
“Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized.”
I never said that anyone “should be sterilized.” Your making that false accusation shows your argument is debile.
“Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post.”
You don’t know what “reason” is if that is your conclusion. You based your attack on a false premise; and then berated me for holding a position I don’t hold.
“That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying.”
That’s not true, unless you believe it is sexist of me to presume that females get pregnant, while males don’t. Otherwise, your conclusion reveals your incapacity to understand. Your calling me a “sexist,” when I am not, does not make me what you pretend I am.
“Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible.”
Explain to me what exactly is “reprehensible” about encouraging people who are unfit to be parents to not bear kids?
Just because you state this is reprehensible doesn’t makee it so. You have failed to prove your argument.
As far as Darwinism goes, that goes to the genetics argument which I never used, disagree with, and strongly oppose. Your assumption seems to be that if you pretend I wrote something, then it must be so.
“You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.”
Your inferences were all on your own, based on false assumptions. You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.
“Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there. “
Finally, once again, you failed to prove your point(s). If you don’t know how to make a logical argument, just stick to your ad hominem attacks.
“Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?”
I presume it is because you can’t make a rational argument based on facts, so you calumniate me, hoping such ad hominem attacks will suffice.
“Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized.”
I never said that anyone “should be sterilized.” Your making that false accusation shows your argument is debile.
“Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post.”
You don’t know what “reason” is if that is your conclusion. You based your attack on a false premise; and then berated me for holding a position I don’t hold.
“That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying.”
That’s not true, unless you believe it is sexist of me to presume that females get pregnant, while males don’t. Otherwise, your conclusion reveals your incapacity to understand. Your calling me a “sexist,” when I am not, does not make me what you pretend I am.
“Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible.”
Explain to me what exactly is “reprehensible” about encouraging people who are unfit to be parents to not bear kids?
Just because you state this is reprehensible doesn’t makee it so. You have failed to prove your argument.
As far as Darwinism goes, that goes to the genetics argument which I never used, disagree with, and strongly oppose. Your assumption seems to be that if you pretend I wrote something, then it must be so.
“You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.”
Your inferences were all on your own, based on false assumptions. You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.
“Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there. “
Finally, once again, you failed to prove your point(s). If you don’t know how to make a logical argument, just stick to your ad hominem attacks.
“Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?”
I presume it is because you can’t make a rational argument based on facts, so you calumniate me, hoping such ad hominem attacks will suffice.
“Rich, you want to claim that you didn’t say what you said or argue the fine points of your writing but even though you think you can get out of the trap you put youself in by arguing that you weren’t saying that since blacks and hispanics suffer from the conditions you laid out in greater numbers than whites and asians, that more blacks and hispanics should be sterilized.”
I never said that anyone “should be sterilized.” Your making that false accusation shows your argument is debile.
“Of course a reasonable person would infer that from you post.”
You don’t know what “reason” is if that is your conclusion. You based your attack on a false premise; and then berated me for holding a position I don’t hold.
“That aside, it is the whole idea of capitalistically induced sterilization of women as a solution to social problems that reveals a sexist lack of understanding of what you were saying.”
That’s not true, unless you believe it is sexist of me to presume that females get pregnant, while males don’t. Otherwise, your conclusion reveals your incapacity to understand. Your calling me a “sexist,” when I am not, does not make me what you pretend I am.
“Suggesting, as you did, we should pay women to be sterilized, for whatever reason, represents a sort of social Darwinism that is completely reprehensible.”
Explain to me what exactly is “reprehensible” about encouraging people who are unfit to be parents to not bear kids?
Just because you state this is reprehensible doesn’t makee it so. You have failed to prove your argument.
As far as Darwinism goes, that goes to the genetics argument which I never used, disagree with, and strongly oppose. Your assumption seems to be that if you pretend I wrote something, then it must be so.
“You should also apologize for making us infer what you now claim you never said.”
Your inferences were all on your own, based on false assumptions. You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.
“Finally, once again you have shown a bias through your writing that you claim wasn’t there. “
Finally, once again, you failed to prove your point(s). If you don’t know how to make a logical argument, just stick to your ad hominem attacks.
“Don’t you ever wonder why you keep getting accused of rascism, predjudice, bigotry and bias for many of your posts even though you always claim you didn’t say what many people infer from your writings?”
I presume it is because you can’t make a rational argument based on facts, so you calumniate me, hoping such ad hominem attacks will suffice.
“You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
That should be, “You don’t need apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
“You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
That should be, “You don’t need apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
“You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
That should be, “You don’t need apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
“You don’t apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
That should be, “You don’t need apologies from me. You need apologies from your gradeschool teachers.”
Rifkin-
You’ve got alot of “splaining to do”!
May I suggest switching to decaf.
You lost a lot of hard earned cred. on this one.
Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?
Are Murray-Garcia and London familiar with your sentiments??
Rifkin-
You’ve got alot of “splaining to do”!
May I suggest switching to decaf.
You lost a lot of hard earned cred. on this one.
Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?
Are Murray-Garcia and London familiar with your sentiments??
Rifkin-
You’ve got alot of “splaining to do”!
May I suggest switching to decaf.
You lost a lot of hard earned cred. on this one.
Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?
Are Murray-Garcia and London familiar with your sentiments??
Rifkin-
You’ve got alot of “splaining to do”!
May I suggest switching to decaf.
You lost a lot of hard earned cred. on this one.
Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?
Are Murray-Garcia and London familiar with your sentiments??
“Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?”
Yes.
When that column ran (on August 8, 2007), I received about a dozen emails, all positive. I am aware of the fact that emails to me are not necessarily representative of The Enterprise’s readership. Usually, people who agree with me and want to express that write to me and those who don’t either skip my column entirely or write directly to the editor.* In this case, there were no letters to the editor.
(Note: I just re-read that column and there is one difference from what I said above: I wrote last year that the $35,000 should be offered to “18- to 30-year-old men and women.” Here I said just females. It really doesn’t make a difference, but I suppose it would do more good to offer the deal to both sexes, as long as they were reared under the undesirable circumstances I laid out.
* On many columns I have received negative letters. However, on this one I did not get any of those.
“Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?”
Yes.
When that column ran (on August 8, 2007), I received about a dozen emails, all positive. I am aware of the fact that emails to me are not necessarily representative of The Enterprise’s readership. Usually, people who agree with me and want to express that write to me and those who don’t either skip my column entirely or write directly to the editor.* In this case, there were no letters to the editor.
(Note: I just re-read that column and there is one difference from what I said above: I wrote last year that the $35,000 should be offered to “18- to 30-year-old men and women.” Here I said just females. It really doesn’t make a difference, but I suppose it would do more good to offer the deal to both sexes, as long as they were reared under the undesirable circumstances I laid out.
* On many columns I have received negative letters. However, on this one I did not get any of those.
“Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?”
Yes.
When that column ran (on August 8, 2007), I received about a dozen emails, all positive. I am aware of the fact that emails to me are not necessarily representative of The Enterprise’s readership. Usually, people who agree with me and want to express that write to me and those who don’t either skip my column entirely or write directly to the editor.* In this case, there were no letters to the editor.
(Note: I just re-read that column and there is one difference from what I said above: I wrote last year that the $35,000 should be offered to “18- to 30-year-old men and women.” Here I said just females. It really doesn’t make a difference, but I suppose it would do more good to offer the deal to both sexes, as long as they were reared under the undesirable circumstances I laid out.
* On many columns I have received negative letters. However, on this one I did not get any of those.
“Did you ever publish those thoughts as The Lexicon Artist?”
Yes.
When that column ran (on August 8, 2007), I received about a dozen emails, all positive. I am aware of the fact that emails to me are not necessarily representative of The Enterprise’s readership. Usually, people who agree with me and want to express that write to me and those who don’t either skip my column entirely or write directly to the editor.* In this case, there were no letters to the editor.
(Note: I just re-read that column and there is one difference from what I said above: I wrote last year that the $35,000 should be offered to “18- to 30-year-old men and women.” Here I said just females. It really doesn’t make a difference, but I suppose it would do more good to offer the deal to both sexes, as long as they were reared under the undesirable circumstances I laid out.
* On many columns I have received negative letters. However, on this one I did not get any of those.
Well, was the outcome of yesterday’s Board meeting a foregone conclusion? Aside from the unconcealed arrogance and condescension, it appears that the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of Duane Chamberlain, had already made the decision on the siting of the re-entry facility even before public comment was received. Certainly, in total disregard to the people’s voice, the Board sold out the heart and soul of the Madison community. Did anyone notice in the attachments for the agenda item that the draft agreement was already in place for the purchase of the Madison site? The Board went though the motions, but, once again, all the important decisions had already been made in those recurrent closed sessions to which the Board has endeared itself. Despite the pantomime performance, it was unmistakably clear that it has been and still is all about the money. Ethics and representative government be damned. In Yolo County you can buy just about anything for $30 million … even the Board of Supervisors!
Well, was the outcome of yesterday’s Board meeting a foregone conclusion? Aside from the unconcealed arrogance and condescension, it appears that the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of Duane Chamberlain, had already made the decision on the siting of the re-entry facility even before public comment was received. Certainly, in total disregard to the people’s voice, the Board sold out the heart and soul of the Madison community. Did anyone notice in the attachments for the agenda item that the draft agreement was already in place for the purchase of the Madison site? The Board went though the motions, but, once again, all the important decisions had already been made in those recurrent closed sessions to which the Board has endeared itself. Despite the pantomime performance, it was unmistakably clear that it has been and still is all about the money. Ethics and representative government be damned. In Yolo County you can buy just about anything for $30 million … even the Board of Supervisors!
Well, was the outcome of yesterday’s Board meeting a foregone conclusion? Aside from the unconcealed arrogance and condescension, it appears that the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of Duane Chamberlain, had already made the decision on the siting of the re-entry facility even before public comment was received. Certainly, in total disregard to the people’s voice, the Board sold out the heart and soul of the Madison community. Did anyone notice in the attachments for the agenda item that the draft agreement was already in place for the purchase of the Madison site? The Board went though the motions, but, once again, all the important decisions had already been made in those recurrent closed sessions to which the Board has endeared itself. Despite the pantomime performance, it was unmistakably clear that it has been and still is all about the money. Ethics and representative government be damned. In Yolo County you can buy just about anything for $30 million … even the Board of Supervisors!
Well, was the outcome of yesterday’s Board meeting a foregone conclusion? Aside from the unconcealed arrogance and condescension, it appears that the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of Duane Chamberlain, had already made the decision on the siting of the re-entry facility even before public comment was received. Certainly, in total disregard to the people’s voice, the Board sold out the heart and soul of the Madison community. Did anyone notice in the attachments for the agenda item that the draft agreement was already in place for the purchase of the Madison site? The Board went though the motions, but, once again, all the important decisions had already been made in those recurrent closed sessions to which the Board has endeared itself. Despite the pantomime performance, it was unmistakably clear that it has been and still is all about the money. Ethics and representative government be damned. In Yolo County you can buy just about anything for $30 million … even the Board of Supervisors!
Rich keep those denials coming I hope everyone in town reads this because its so revealing.
OK I’ll play your game one time, you said:
“The best solution is pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35000 ….. to be sterilized once she reaches the age of 18.
Now you didn’t say should as if making the progrom voluntary makes it somehow acceptable.
“Who grew up in screwed up circumstances”
In evolution, nature decides what characters are selected, in social Darwinism people like you, the nazis, Stalin, or Pol Pot decide. I’ll stick with nature. Obviously you don’t know the difference and misquote me by leaving out the word “Social.”
“That’s not true unless you believe that it is sexist of me to believe that females get pregnant.”
No it is sexist of you to suggest that only females should be sterilized. It took you until your uptenth post to retract this and only after I called you on it after defending it vociferously. Even then you add males with half hearted fervor.
Forgive me Rich, I should have said you are implying, by talking about higher percentages of blacks and hispanics being raised under adverse circumstances, that these groups would benefit more from your progrom than whites and asians. You seem to think that by including everyone it makes it OK.
Never forget Rich that lots of Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Russians and petty criminals were also exterminated in Nazi death camps. They killed 12 million only half were jews and some of those jews had blond hair and blue eyes. So sorry, it doesn’t make it OK to include these groups as well.
The fact that nobody called you on your column is too bad they should have. Maybe they were too disgusted or out of town. I’m calling you on it now and I hope Debbie Davis reads this blog. Why don’t you ask her to read this the next time you talk to her. Just because you slipped one by doesn’t excuse the outrageous position. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why these sorts of progroms are universally condemned? Even the Chinese let people have one child, you would offer this to young people who hadn’t even had one if they met your criteria.
I remember when I was young some women wanted to have their tubes cut before having children something the doctors understood was the most beautiful gift of life. It was hard to find a doctor who would do it because they knew the women might change their minds later. You would pay young people, giving them incentives to forclose this option. How cold and calculating can you get.
Rich keep those denials coming I hope everyone in town reads this because its so revealing.
OK I’ll play your game one time, you said:
“The best solution is pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35000 ….. to be sterilized once she reaches the age of 18.
Now you didn’t say should as if making the progrom voluntary makes it somehow acceptable.
“Who grew up in screwed up circumstances”
In evolution, nature decides what characters are selected, in social Darwinism people like you, the nazis, Stalin, or Pol Pot decide. I’ll stick with nature. Obviously you don’t know the difference and misquote me by leaving out the word “Social.”
“That’s not true unless you believe that it is sexist of me to believe that females get pregnant.”
No it is sexist of you to suggest that only females should be sterilized. It took you until your uptenth post to retract this and only after I called you on it after defending it vociferously. Even then you add males with half hearted fervor.
Forgive me Rich, I should have said you are implying, by talking about higher percentages of blacks and hispanics being raised under adverse circumstances, that these groups would benefit more from your progrom than whites and asians. You seem to think that by including everyone it makes it OK.
Never forget Rich that lots of Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Russians and petty criminals were also exterminated in Nazi death camps. They killed 12 million only half were jews and some of those jews had blond hair and blue eyes. So sorry, it doesn’t make it OK to include these groups as well.
The fact that nobody called you on your column is too bad they should have. Maybe they were too disgusted or out of town. I’m calling you on it now and I hope Debbie Davis reads this blog. Why don’t you ask her to read this the next time you talk to her. Just because you slipped one by doesn’t excuse the outrageous position. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why these sorts of progroms are universally condemned? Even the Chinese let people have one child, you would offer this to young people who hadn’t even had one if they met your criteria.
I remember when I was young some women wanted to have their tubes cut before having children something the doctors understood was the most beautiful gift of life. It was hard to find a doctor who would do it because they knew the women might change their minds later. You would pay young people, giving them incentives to forclose this option. How cold and calculating can you get.
Rich keep those denials coming I hope everyone in town reads this because its so revealing.
OK I’ll play your game one time, you said:
“The best solution is pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35000 ….. to be sterilized once she reaches the age of 18.
Now you didn’t say should as if making the progrom voluntary makes it somehow acceptable.
“Who grew up in screwed up circumstances”
In evolution, nature decides what characters are selected, in social Darwinism people like you, the nazis, Stalin, or Pol Pot decide. I’ll stick with nature. Obviously you don’t know the difference and misquote me by leaving out the word “Social.”
“That’s not true unless you believe that it is sexist of me to believe that females get pregnant.”
No it is sexist of you to suggest that only females should be sterilized. It took you until your uptenth post to retract this and only after I called you on it after defending it vociferously. Even then you add males with half hearted fervor.
Forgive me Rich, I should have said you are implying, by talking about higher percentages of blacks and hispanics being raised under adverse circumstances, that these groups would benefit more from your progrom than whites and asians. You seem to think that by including everyone it makes it OK.
Never forget Rich that lots of Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Russians and petty criminals were also exterminated in Nazi death camps. They killed 12 million only half were jews and some of those jews had blond hair and blue eyes. So sorry, it doesn’t make it OK to include these groups as well.
The fact that nobody called you on your column is too bad they should have. Maybe they were too disgusted or out of town. I’m calling you on it now and I hope Debbie Davis reads this blog. Why don’t you ask her to read this the next time you talk to her. Just because you slipped one by doesn’t excuse the outrageous position. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why these sorts of progroms are universally condemned? Even the Chinese let people have one child, you would offer this to young people who hadn’t even had one if they met your criteria.
I remember when I was young some women wanted to have their tubes cut before having children something the doctors understood was the most beautiful gift of life. It was hard to find a doctor who would do it because they knew the women might change their minds later. You would pay young people, giving them incentives to forclose this option. How cold and calculating can you get.
Rich keep those denials coming I hope everyone in town reads this because its so revealing.
OK I’ll play your game one time, you said:
“The best solution is pay each young woman who grows up in screwed up circumstances $35000 ….. to be sterilized once she reaches the age of 18.
Now you didn’t say should as if making the progrom voluntary makes it somehow acceptable.
“Who grew up in screwed up circumstances”
In evolution, nature decides what characters are selected, in social Darwinism people like you, the nazis, Stalin, or Pol Pot decide. I’ll stick with nature. Obviously you don’t know the difference and misquote me by leaving out the word “Social.”
“That’s not true unless you believe that it is sexist of me to believe that females get pregnant.”
No it is sexist of you to suggest that only females should be sterilized. It took you until your uptenth post to retract this and only after I called you on it after defending it vociferously. Even then you add males with half hearted fervor.
Forgive me Rich, I should have said you are implying, by talking about higher percentages of blacks and hispanics being raised under adverse circumstances, that these groups would benefit more from your progrom than whites and asians. You seem to think that by including everyone it makes it OK.
Never forget Rich that lots of Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Russians and petty criminals were also exterminated in Nazi death camps. They killed 12 million only half were jews and some of those jews had blond hair and blue eyes. So sorry, it doesn’t make it OK to include these groups as well.
The fact that nobody called you on your column is too bad they should have. Maybe they were too disgusted or out of town. I’m calling you on it now and I hope Debbie Davis reads this blog. Why don’t you ask her to read this the next time you talk to her. Just because you slipped one by doesn’t excuse the outrageous position. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why these sorts of progroms are universally condemned? Even the Chinese let people have one child, you would offer this to young people who hadn’t even had one if they met your criteria.
I remember when I was young some women wanted to have their tubes cut before having children something the doctors understood was the most beautiful gift of life. It was hard to find a doctor who would do it because they knew the women might change their minds later. You would pay young people, giving them incentives to forclose this option. How cold and calculating can you get.
Rich, I understand the difference between ‘requiring’ or ‘forcing’ someone to get sterilized and your proposal that it be voluntary. However, $35,000 may look like a lot of money to someone who is young and childless. Your criteria of broken homes, violent homes, drug abuse in the family, etc. sound reasonable at first glance, but do not stand up to a deeper or longer look. People cannot be reduced to statistics and when we assume that we know what is best for others in their personal lives, we are taking on a role that is inherently dangerous. I have certain opinions about what constitutes good parenting and it conflicts with what many people in Davis think is good parenting. So who gets to decide?
I still maintain that drugs are at the root of this problem and that drug abuse is an illness that we need to approach therapeutically and with the greatest respect for the dignity of the individual. I worked with heroin addicts for many, many years and it is impossible to predict who will recover and who will not. Individuals can rise above their circumstances and they do so more often that we could imagine. I would never want to think that I presented an obstacle to someone who might really contribute something to the world someday. As I said, under your proposed system, many people we admire today might never have been born.
Rich, I understand the difference between ‘requiring’ or ‘forcing’ someone to get sterilized and your proposal that it be voluntary. However, $35,000 may look like a lot of money to someone who is young and childless. Your criteria of broken homes, violent homes, drug abuse in the family, etc. sound reasonable at first glance, but do not stand up to a deeper or longer look. People cannot be reduced to statistics and when we assume that we know what is best for others in their personal lives, we are taking on a role that is inherently dangerous. I have certain opinions about what constitutes good parenting and it conflicts with what many people in Davis think is good parenting. So who gets to decide?
I still maintain that drugs are at the root of this problem and that drug abuse is an illness that we need to approach therapeutically and with the greatest respect for the dignity of the individual. I worked with heroin addicts for many, many years and it is impossible to predict who will recover and who will not. Individuals can rise above their circumstances and they do so more often that we could imagine. I would never want to think that I presented an obstacle to someone who might really contribute something to the world someday. As I said, under your proposed system, many people we admire today might never have been born.
Rich, I understand the difference between ‘requiring’ or ‘forcing’ someone to get sterilized and your proposal that it be voluntary. However, $35,000 may look like a lot of money to someone who is young and childless. Your criteria of broken homes, violent homes, drug abuse in the family, etc. sound reasonable at first glance, but do not stand up to a deeper or longer look. People cannot be reduced to statistics and when we assume that we know what is best for others in their personal lives, we are taking on a role that is inherently dangerous. I have certain opinions about what constitutes good parenting and it conflicts with what many people in Davis think is good parenting. So who gets to decide?
I still maintain that drugs are at the root of this problem and that drug abuse is an illness that we need to approach therapeutically and with the greatest respect for the dignity of the individual. I worked with heroin addicts for many, many years and it is impossible to predict who will recover and who will not. Individuals can rise above their circumstances and they do so more often that we could imagine. I would never want to think that I presented an obstacle to someone who might really contribute something to the world someday. As I said, under your proposed system, many people we admire today might never have been born.
Rich, I understand the difference between ‘requiring’ or ‘forcing’ someone to get sterilized and your proposal that it be voluntary. However, $35,000 may look like a lot of money to someone who is young and childless. Your criteria of broken homes, violent homes, drug abuse in the family, etc. sound reasonable at first glance, but do not stand up to a deeper or longer look. People cannot be reduced to statistics and when we assume that we know what is best for others in their personal lives, we are taking on a role that is inherently dangerous. I have certain opinions about what constitutes good parenting and it conflicts with what many people in Davis think is good parenting. So who gets to decide?
I still maintain that drugs are at the root of this problem and that drug abuse is an illness that we need to approach therapeutically and with the greatest respect for the dignity of the individual. I worked with heroin addicts for many, many years and it is impossible to predict who will recover and who will not. Individuals can rise above their circumstances and they do so more often that we could imagine. I would never want to think that I presented an obstacle to someone who might really contribute something to the world someday. As I said, under your proposed system, many people we admire today might never have been born.
“First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.”
Where do I begin? First of all, it is MEN who get women pregnant. Let 18 year olds from “dysfunctional” households get sterilized (which I do not advocate BTW).
Excuse me, but at least the women of those criminals stuck around to take care of the kids. That is more than I can say for the fathers. You are in effect blaming women for the problem of crime. What a copout and sexist attitude.
“Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.”
Now it is educated independent women that are the root of crime. Where do you get off? Talk about sexist attitudes extraordinaire. Come off your high horse and live in the real world where males are the primary perps of crime, and need to take responsibility for that.
Also, who died and made you the arbiter of what it “dysfunctional”?
“While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families.”
You have got to be kidding? If you don’t think there is more sex outside marriage going on today then in years before, then you are living in la-la land.
“Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life.”
Holding out a $35,000 bribe to an 18 year old at risk youth is hardly what I would call “free choice”. It is coercion, pure and simple, especially if you come from a poor background and desperately need the money. Furthermore, as I said before, who is going to decide who is eligible for this largesse?
“While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.”
Who gets to decide who is skilled enough to raise a child? You? How is that “free choice”. Because you bribed the person with money not to have any child. Trust me, you will still have mixed up kids in today’s society, bc your solution is not getting at the root causes of the crime problem. We need to go back to tradtional values, teache it, live it, eat it, breath it. Follow the Golden Rule. Yes it is difficult, but if you believe, it can be achieved.
“It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record. That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.”
In other words, those from poor backgrounds. Because that is who would more likely bite. And why not offer sterilzation to men? You will prevent more pregnancies that way, no? Remember, bees spread pollen from flower to flower, not vice versa.
“First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.”
Where do I begin? First of all, it is MEN who get women pregnant. Let 18 year olds from “dysfunctional” households get sterilized (which I do not advocate BTW).
Excuse me, but at least the women of those criminals stuck around to take care of the kids. That is more than I can say for the fathers. You are in effect blaming women for the problem of crime. What a copout and sexist attitude.
“Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.”
Now it is educated independent women that are the root of crime. Where do you get off? Talk about sexist attitudes extraordinaire. Come off your high horse and live in the real world where males are the primary perps of crime, and need to take responsibility for that.
Also, who died and made you the arbiter of what it “dysfunctional”?
“While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families.”
You have got to be kidding? If you don’t think there is more sex outside marriage going on today then in years before, then you are living in la-la land.
“Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life.”
Holding out a $35,000 bribe to an 18 year old at risk youth is hardly what I would call “free choice”. It is coercion, pure and simple, especially if you come from a poor background and desperately need the money. Furthermore, as I said before, who is going to decide who is eligible for this largesse?
“While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.”
Who gets to decide who is skilled enough to raise a child? You? How is that “free choice”. Because you bribed the person with money not to have any child. Trust me, you will still have mixed up kids in today’s society, bc your solution is not getting at the root causes of the crime problem. We need to go back to tradtional values, teache it, live it, eat it, breath it. Follow the Golden Rule. Yes it is difficult, but if you believe, it can be achieved.
“It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record. That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.”
In other words, those from poor backgrounds. Because that is who would more likely bite. And why not offer sterilzation to men? You will prevent more pregnancies that way, no? Remember, bees spread pollen from flower to flower, not vice versa.
“First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.”
Where do I begin? First of all, it is MEN who get women pregnant. Let 18 year olds from “dysfunctional” households get sterilized (which I do not advocate BTW).
Excuse me, but at least the women of those criminals stuck around to take care of the kids. That is more than I can say for the fathers. You are in effect blaming women for the problem of crime. What a copout and sexist attitude.
“Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.”
Now it is educated independent women that are the root of crime. Where do you get off? Talk about sexist attitudes extraordinaire. Come off your high horse and live in the real world where males are the primary perps of crime, and need to take responsibility for that.
Also, who died and made you the arbiter of what it “dysfunctional”?
“While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families.”
You have got to be kidding? If you don’t think there is more sex outside marriage going on today then in years before, then you are living in la-la land.
“Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life.”
Holding out a $35,000 bribe to an 18 year old at risk youth is hardly what I would call “free choice”. It is coercion, pure and simple, especially if you come from a poor background and desperately need the money. Furthermore, as I said before, who is going to decide who is eligible for this largesse?
“While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.”
Who gets to decide who is skilled enough to raise a child? You? How is that “free choice”. Because you bribed the person with money not to have any child. Trust me, you will still have mixed up kids in today’s society, bc your solution is not getting at the root causes of the crime problem. We need to go back to tradtional values, teache it, live it, eat it, breath it. Follow the Golden Rule. Yes it is difficult, but if you believe, it can be achieved.
“It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record. That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.”
In other words, those from poor backgrounds. Because that is who would more likely bite. And why not offer sterilzation to men? You will prevent more pregnancies that way, no? Remember, bees spread pollen from flower to flower, not vice versa.
“First, I am not “blaming” women for the problem. My suggestion to offer $35,000 to females raised in dysfunctional circumstances in exchange for being voluntarily sterilized is because females, not males, get pregnant. If men got pregnant, the offer would apply to them. Second, almost all (but not 100%) of the people in prison today were primarily raised by unmarried females. Thus, it is these women who are bringing up our criminals and passing on the dysfunction which plagues society.”
Where do I begin? First of all, it is MEN who get women pregnant. Let 18 year olds from “dysfunctional” households get sterilized (which I do not advocate BTW).
Excuse me, but at least the women of those criminals stuck around to take care of the kids. That is more than I can say for the fathers. You are in effect blaming women for the problem of crime. What a copout and sexist attitude.
“Also, educated women, beginning in the post-WW2 period began earning more and more money relative to men. As such, their economic independence has gradually freed them from the bonds of matrimony. But as social science research amply shows, even the children of well paid, yet unmarried mothers have high social dysfunction factors.”
Now it is educated independent women that are the root of crime. Where do you get off? Talk about sexist attitudes extraordinaire. Come off your high horse and live in the real world where males are the primary perps of crime, and need to take responsibility for that.
Also, who died and made you the arbiter of what it “dysfunctional”?
“While your point is well taken, I am doubtful that people today are having more sex than people were back when more children were raised in intact families.”
You have got to be kidding? If you don’t think there is more sex outside marriage going on today then in years before, then you are living in la-la land.
“Again, what I advocate would be the free choice of those who prefered not to have kids and prefered to have a good amount of money to help them lead a better life.”
Holding out a $35,000 bribe to an 18 year old at risk youth is hardly what I would call “free choice”. It is coercion, pure and simple, especially if you come from a poor background and desperately need the money. Furthermore, as I said before, who is going to decide who is eligible for this largesse?
“While you refer to some people being “inferior,” I reject that claim. People are people. However, some have the skills to successfully raise children who will be productive members of society. Others, because of the circumstances of their own childhoods are far less likely to have those skills. Admittedly, some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances, despite making bad choices in their own lives, raise perfectly well adjusted children. But that is, alas, not the norm.”
Who gets to decide who is skilled enough to raise a child? You? How is that “free choice”. Because you bribed the person with money not to have any child. Trust me, you will still have mixed up kids in today’s society, bc your solution is not getting at the root causes of the crime problem. We need to go back to tradtional values, teache it, live it, eat it, breath it. Follow the Golden Rule. Yes it is difficult, but if you believe, it can be achieved.
“It is someone who was raised in a broken family; and who experienced a violent household; and a household with drug or alcohol abuse; and a household with criminal activity; and is a person who as a minor either got pregnant or had a drug or alcohol problem or had a criminal record. That’s a lot of strikes against such a young woman. If she has those strikes, she would be a good candidate to offer the money to. She could turn it down. But if she took it, she and society would be better off.”
In other words, those from poor backgrounds. Because that is who would more likely bite. And why not offer sterilzation to men? You will prevent more pregnancies that way, no? Remember, bees spread pollen from flower to flower, not vice versa.
I like the way “disgusted” distorts all the answers Rifkin gave to make Rifkin look like he said something he didn’t. I guess if you came from outer space and had no idea what words and ideas meant, you could draw the bogus conclusions of “disgusted.” Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.
I like the way “disgusted” distorts all the answers Rifkin gave to make Rifkin look like he said something he didn’t. I guess if you came from outer space and had no idea what words and ideas meant, you could draw the bogus conclusions of “disgusted.” Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.
I like the way “disgusted” distorts all the answers Rifkin gave to make Rifkin look like he said something he didn’t. I guess if you came from outer space and had no idea what words and ideas meant, you could draw the bogus conclusions of “disgusted.” Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.
I like the way “disgusted” distorts all the answers Rifkin gave to make Rifkin look like he said something he didn’t. I guess if you came from outer space and had no idea what words and ideas meant, you could draw the bogus conclusions of “disgusted.” Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.
“Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.”
Then defend his position!
“Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.”
Then defend his position!
“Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.”
Then defend his position!
“Disgusted has an agenda to call names and throw bombs. I am just surprised anyone is that mindless and unfair when someone else, namely Rifkin, gave sound explanations for his ideas. Too bad someone intelligent who disagrees won’t speak up.”
Then defend his position!
The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.
The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.
The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.
The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.
“The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.”
And they don’t defend such an outrageous position as Rifkin’s with logic – just namecalling, the very thing they accuse someone else of. Nasty tactic!
“The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.”
And they don’t defend such an outrageous position as Rifkin’s with logic – just namecalling, the very thing they accuse someone else of. Nasty tactic!
“The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.”
And they don’t defend such an outrageous position as Rifkin’s with logic – just namecalling, the very thing they accuse someone else of. Nasty tactic!
“The insidious nature of Rifkin’s type of bigotry is that others read it and think it is intelligent.”
And they don’t defend such an outrageous position as Rifkin’s with logic – just namecalling, the very thing they accuse someone else of. Nasty tactic!