CDZ Is it just me?

[320 Years of History]

As I've said, I think mentoring is great and we need more of it. Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get it. NYC executives didn't fail to turn around failing schools, they failed to try. The ads were ineffective. Expecting retired people,...[given] the enormous effort required, to try to teach in a ... school is reflective of an overestimation of human nature. We're not that good. The golf course or an inner city hellhole school? Hmmmn. Fore!

I don't want to appear cynical, but... I am. They're out there, in the millions, those kids who need and would benefit from outreach. Again, when assigning scarce resources to the problem, practicality is a major consideration. First you'd have to prove that a sufficient number of people would be willing to do what a mentor would need to do in order to be effective. Going into "bad" neighborhoods? A deal breaker for most. Taking on the problems of troubled youths?

If you can prove there's enough people willing to commit to a process from which they cannot casually withdraw, then you face the mountain of institutionalizing the process. The rules you now create for yourself will have to be subject to the rules of the new institution, and as you say, thereby have their effectiveness blunted. I am not qualified to do a cost/benefit analysis of all this, but I would be skeptical of its practicality.

I have not suggested that money is an effective measure of success or happiness. We seem to have a very different perspective on poverty. That's too large a subject, however. You have to particularize. What I'm talking about is Black poverty in America.

Parenting is the most important of human activities. It's many things, but one of them is birthright. This consists of both family and cultural ties. It is the anchor for parenting. It's the village of which you speak. It is literally priceless. What happens when you rob people of their birthright? When you deny them cultural continuity of any kind, while at the same time denying them any opportunity to learn your culture and assimilate? When you make it a crime to teach them to read and write? When you suppress and concentrate them at every turn? When you deny them the right to form families? When you sell their children?

We didn't "free" the slaves, we brutally put down a rebellion. We broke the last major slave network on the earth. Millions of former slaves were now free to fend for themselves in the disaster zone of the defeated South. Free of pesky skills, money, culture, education. Yes, it would have been serendipitous indeed if the freed slaves could have encountered people who would teach them about culture and traditions and parenting. It happened to Louis Armstrong, for one. Father, absent. Mother, prostitute. He knew abuse and crushing poverty. He was taken in by a family who mentored him. The results speak for themselves. So do the results of the vast majority who don't enjoy this great good fortune. They cannot pass along parenting skills they themselves do not possess. Such skills are not instinctive, they are the cultural and family birthright. There is no way to overstate the importance of this birthright, or the damage caused by destroying it. I called it cultural genocide and that is exactly what I think it is. The effects of such an occurrence do not disappear quickly. Frankly, they have disappeared faster than I would ever have expected them to, with 75% of the black population above the poverty line. With a black president.

But the 25% are a problem. A big problem. A problem that I'm not sure you have seen in its entirety. I'm curious about your reaction to my statement about nothing being the same in these high poverty areas. You mentioned the schools doing "whatever it is they do". The failed school is a perfect example of just how different, how inverted things become when they are attempted in a high poverty area. It's Dickensian. Literally. An institution designed to educate turned into a tool of suppression. There are no expectations. There is only a meat grinder of failure for fragile young psyches. I call them "penitentiaries lite". They're places we lock up young people, so they're not out roaming the streets.

The word gap is the measure of what a child has been exposed to. Poverty traps children in limited environments. The earlier you can expand their worlds, the better.

CONTINUED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST....(sorry I couldn't finish this yesterday)

Lavender:
Not seen by me in it's entirety? Has anyone seen it in it's entirety? Does anyone need to? Is not having seen (lived) it in the entirety a reason to resign oneself to doing nothing instead of at least doing what one can?

Seriously though, I haven't lived it, but I think you'd be surprised over what I've seen. I may have been born and live on "the right side of the tracks," but there's no wall that stops me from seeing and going to the other side. Surely, too, you don't think the folk who "cross the tracks" to work in my firm's offices, or in my or folks' home, do so and don't discuss the state of things and their circumstances with me?

I'm now wondering if you perceive that the basis from which I mentioned mentoring in the first place is a tacit believe on my part that mentoring can offer a complete or substantively complete solution to the issues we've been talking about? For the record, I don't think that at all. Mentoring is merely the entirety of what I am willing and able to do as my contribution to being part of the solution rather than being part of the groups that are either doing nothing (effective) to help matters, or who are doing things to make it worse.

Pale Blue:
I don't know that I have a reaction to that statement specifically.

Day-glow Green:
Things are different in, that's a fact, and for the people living in high poverty areas. Is "nothing" the same? I don't think I'd go that far, but enough is different that I don't feel obliged to take exception with the remark. I know that sometimes, and some, the inherent differences in things, people, and situations make a difference in how one can effectively address them, and sometimes they don't. When it comes to the delivery of education, I don't see that there is any reason to handle it differently due to the student body's wealth status; I do see a reason to handle behavior management differently.

"A tool of suppression?" Saying something is a tool implies there's a deliberacy to how it's being used. Saying the schools and the way they are run, managed, and so on is ineffective, or ineffective for one or several groups is one thing. I find it very hard to believe that anyone, or any group for that matter, deliberately uses the school system as a tool in their effort(s) to oppress or suppress poor folks.

Olive green:
Unlike you, and perhaps we'll need to agree to differ on this, I do not see poverty as the cause of anything. Poverty is, IMO, an outcome of a variety of behaviors and circumstances. Poverty also is not an abyss from which there is no return. It's more like a pit that's hard to climb out of. It's also like a maze that if one doesn't take the correct course of action, one cannot exit, and if one refuses to heed the input of folks outside the maze hollering instructions for how to get out, one also will not make it to the exit.

 

[Elvis Obama]

As I've said, I think mentoring is great and we need more of it. Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get it. NYC executives didn't fail to turn around failing schools, they failed to try. The ads were ineffective. Expecting retired people,...[given] the enormous effort required, to try to teach in a ... school is reflective of an overestimation of human nature. We're not that good. The golf course or an inner city hellhole school? Hmmmn. Fore!

I don't want to appear cynical, but... I am. They're out there, in the millions, those kids who need and would benefit from outreach. Again, when assigning scarce resources to the problem, practicality is a major consideration. First you'd have to prove that a sufficient number of people would be willing to do what a mentor would need to do in order to be effective. Going into "bad" neighborhoods? A deal breaker for most. Taking on the problems of troubled youths?

If you can prove there's enough people willing to commit to a process from which they cannot casually withdraw, then you face the mountain of institutionalizing the process. The rules you now create for yourself will have to be subject to the rules of the new institution, and as you say, thereby have their effectiveness blunted. I am not qualified to do a cost/benefit analysis of all this, but I would be skeptical of its practicality.

I have not suggested that money is an effective measure of success or happiness. We seem to have a very different perspective on poverty. That's too large a subject, however. You have to particularize. What I'm talking about is Black poverty in America.

Parenting is the most important of human activities. It's many things, but one of them is birthright. This consists of both family and cultural ties. It is the anchor for parenting. It's the village of which you speak. It is literally priceless. What happens when you rob people of their birthright? When you deny them cultural continuity of any kind, while at the same time denying them any opportunity to learn your culture and assimilate? When you make it a crime to teach them to read and write? When you suppress and concentrate them at every turn? When you deny them the right to form families? When you sell their children?

We didn't "free" the slaves, we brutally put down a rebellion. We broke the last major slave network on the earth. Millions of former slaves were now free to fend for themselves in the disaster zone of the defeated South. Free of pesky skills, money, culture, education. Yes, it would have been serendipitous indeed if the freed slaves could have encountered people who would teach them about culture and traditions and parenting. It happened to Louis Armstrong, for one. Father, absent. Mother, prostitute. He knew abuse and crushing poverty. He was taken in by a family who mentored him. The results speak for themselves. So do the results of the vast majority who don't enjoy this great good fortune. They cannot pass along parenting skills they themselves do not possess. Such skills are not instinctive, they are the cultural and family birthright. There is no way to overstate the importance of this birthright, or the damage caused by destroying it. I called it cultural genocide and that is exactly what I think it is. The effects of such an occurrence do not disappear quickly. Frankly, they have disappeared faster than I would ever have expected them to, with 75% of the black population above the poverty line. With a black president.

But the 25% are a problem. A big problem. A problem that I'm not sure you have seen in its entirety. I'm curious about your reaction to my statement about nothing being the same in these high poverty areas. You mentioned the schools doing "whatever it is they do". The failed school is a perfect example of just how different, how inverted things become when they are attempted in a high poverty area. It's Dickensian. Literally. An institution designed to educate turned into a tool of suppression. There are no expectations. There is only a meat grinder of failure for fragile young psyches. I call them "penitentiaries lite". They're places we lock up young people, so they're not out roaming the streets.

The word gap is the measure of what a child has been exposed to. Poverty traps children in limited environments. The earlier you can expand their worlds, the better.

CONTINUED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST....(sorry I couldn't finish this yesterday)

Lavender:
Not seen by me in it's entirety? Has anyone seen it in it's entirety? Does anyone need to? Is not having seen (lived) it in the entirety a reason to resign oneself to doing nothing instead of at least doing what one can?

Seriously though, I haven't lived it, but I think you'd be surprised over what I've seen. I may have been born and live on "the right side of the tracks," but there's no wall that stops me from seeing and going to the other side. Surely, too, you don't think the folk who "cross the tracks" to work in my firm's offices, or in my or folks' home, do so and don't discuss the state of things and their circumstances with me?

I'm now wondering if you perceive that the basis from which I mentioned mentoring in the first place is a tacit believe on my part that mentoring can offer a complete or substantively complete solution to the issues we've been talking about? For the record, I don't think that at all. Mentoring is merely the entirety of what I am willing and able to do as my contribution to being part of the solution rather than being part of the groups that are either doing nothing (effective) to help matters, or who are doing things to make it worse.

Pale Blue:
I don't know that I have a reaction to that statement specifically.

Day-glow Green:
Things are different in, that's a fact, and for the people living in high poverty areas. Is "nothing" the same? I don't think I'd go that far, but enough is different that I don't feel obliged to take exception with the remark. I know that sometimes, and some, the inherent differences in things, people, and situations make a difference in how one can effectively address them, and sometimes they don't. When it comes to the delivery of education, I don't see that there is any reason to handle it differently due to the student body's wealth status; I do see a reason to handle behavior management differently.

"A tool of suppression?" Saying something is a tool implies there's a deliberacy to how it's being used. Saying the schools and the way they are run, managed, and so on is ineffective, or ineffective for one or several groups is one thing. I find it very hard to believe that anyone, or any group for that matter, deliberately uses the school system as a tool in their effort(s) to oppress or suppress poor folks.

Olive green:
Unlike you, and perhaps we'll need to agree to differ on this, I do not see poverty as the cause of anything. Poverty is, IMO, an outcome of a variety of behaviors and circumstances. Poverty also is not an abyss from which there is no return. It's more like a pit that's hard to climb out of. It's also like a maze that if one doesn't take the correct course of action, one cannot exit, and if one refuses to heed the input of folks outside the maze hollering instructions for how to get out, one also will not make it to the exit.

I had wondered whether you are looking at the issue of poverty from a mentor-centric place, and I'm glad you aren't. As I said it has its role to play, but I think we can accept the current level of mentoring, both grass-roots and organized, to be the best that we can expect in the near term.

My initial interest in the experiences you related was piqued by the fact that you actually went into inner city neighborhoods. What everyone develops pretty early in their lives as city dwellers is that there are certain places you just don't go. Central Park after dark, that kind of thing. I went into these areas because I was paid to do so, frankly.

I hate bureaucracies. Who doesn't? Bureaucracy is a Frankenstein we have created, but it's still the only tool for certain jobs. Is there an institutional solution to the problem? I dunno. Not so far, that's for sure. Welfare and public education have failed. If there's something else, I don't know what it might be. I only mentioned it because I was not sure whether or not you were proposing such a thing for mentors. Of course there are such efforts, NGOs like Big Brothers.

The inner cities didn't just spring up spontaneously. We created them. We needed labor for the factories of WWII. We encouraged the "Great Migration". We created these neighborhoods through redlining, concentrating unwanted groups, as every culture has done. You asked whether you can deal with African American poverty as you deal with other forms of poverty, and my answer would be no. The people are just people and you deal with them as you would any other. The culture is a different story. It's a lot easier to screw things up than it is to make them better, but in this instance I believe the onus is on us to continue to try to do something. It makes economic sense to do so, but mostly it makes moral sense.

Obviously no one can see poverty in its entirety. It's a many-headed beast. What I was really wondering was whether you had seen a cross section of the neighborhoods you have visited? Seen the full spectrum of the people there, the drug addicted and mentally ill? The pressures on people? Even if a family strives to manitain a haven within their own walls they still have to deal with the pitfalls of the world right outside.

I think of poverty as the failure of a society to provide a social contract to all of its people. If society doesn't uphold its part of the bargain, why should the individuals whose social contracts have been broken? Most do. Too many don't. Fear of punishment is not rehabilitive in nature, though. It keeps people in line, but it doesn't improve their lot in life.

What else keeps people in line? A lack of confidence helps. Docility. That is indeed the typical reaction to poverty. Sullen to graceful acceptance. There is another strain, who responds to social indifference and condescension with rage. Not many. It's the same in all strata of society, it's just a matter of percentages. You mentioned school discipline. In a normal community a school is allocated a certain number of people to deal with problems: grade advisors, guidance counselors, deans of discipline. The table of organization is based on assumptions about the percentage of unruly students a school is expected to have to deal with. In these inner city schools, the percentages are out of wack. Not a huge amount, but enough to overwhelm the disciplinary apparatus. The problem isn't the discipline though, that's just a symptom. The problem is how these kids have been allowed to fall off grade level.

Children are precious little flowers. Crushing them is a bad idea. Failure at an early age is a longstanding issue in education. The alternative, pretending they haven't failed, is seen as preferable. Maybe so, but I don't know of many other circumstances where ignoring a problem and letting it fester is good policy. The people who work in these schools have no illusions that they are teaching. The students, after a certain age, stop having any illusions that they are learning. The illusions are entirely on the part of politicians and vested interests.

One such interest is Michelle Rhee. I had no regard for her as an educator before her cheating scandal. She is the embodiement of the "scapegoat the teachers" school of political thought. If you can solve the problem of educating the poor you have solved poverty itself. It's not just a matter of hiring the right teachers, though. It takes a lot more than that. Offering people a bonus if they can only solve an ages-old problem is not a helpful approach. Accountability is important, as long as we're sure what people are being held accountable for. The educational process is a four legged table. There are the teachers, the school administration, the parents and, of course, the students themselves. You cannot provide a school where the administration is openly hostile to their staff, where the parents too often are a non-factor in their kid's lives and where the students have ceased to believe in themselves, their fellow students, the teachers, but mostly in themselves and expect the teacher to compensate for all these factors.

A tool of suppression is a dramatic way of stating it, but I don't think it's inaccurate. These are not educational institutions. Their intent is not to fail, but fail they will and everyone who is familiar with these situations knows they will fail. No one has any illusions that they are doing anything other than sitting on a group of young people that grows ever increasingly alientated and hostile with each passing year.

I would never accept the idea that poverty is an abyss from which there is no return. I would not be discussing the subject if I thought that. I'd just throw up my hands and forget it. I don't think positive change can be achieved through inaction, however. I'm not sure what ignoring the advise being shouted from outside means, but clearly the poor have ignored it, so another approach is needed.

 

[FA_Q2]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I think this is a focus on the entirely wrong thing in imprisonment. We have such a high incarceration rate because we are locking people up for victimless crimes that should never have been there in the first place. Worse, that process CREATES criminals rather than reforms them. If you end up in jail for a year on a simple possession charge you leave that institution with almost no prospects for employment, virtually no way to legally support yourself and no real hope for ever improving that situation. It may not be impossible to do so but the system itself creates barriers for no tangible benefit that I can see. then we all hear about crimes that are heinous but get little to no time or get out early and repeat the offense. Rapists and child molesters are the poster children for this.

I think there needs to be a concerted effort to lock up the RIGHT people more than locking up more people and an even larger effort to reintegrate those that are locked up back into society. Prison should not just be a cage unless you are never planning on letting that individual out for the rest of their lives.

 

[Jackson]

Actually, death by cop is not anything like an epidemic. The chance of being shot by black people who have guns illegally, is.

Every gun starts out as a legal gun.
This crucial fact is seldom addressed by Second Amendment Patriots. Nobody thinks illegal guns are a good idea regardless of the color of the owner. How do we stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns? That seems to be a real issue.

Simplified, perhaps it boils down to what my folks taught me as a young adult. What they said was this.

If you are conservative before you turn 35 you, have a lot to learn and everything to lose. If you are a liberal after 35, you haven't learned much and have nothing to hang on to.​

One must understand the human condition and the reality of life in the society in which one finds oneself to fully grasp what's in that short axiom. I didn't really "get it" until I was in my mid to late 20s when I came to understand what life stages are and the importance of doing that which is appropriate to the stage in which one finds oneself.

Thought I think the specific age varies somewhat from person to person, but I think the principle applies universally.

I think adults should teach all young, it is not the party or ideology. It is who you believe in. Who do you believe carries your needs next to his breast and works for that result. I.m sure some have guessed it, it is yourself. You know what you want and it is your responsibility to make it happen. No Democrat or Republican can do it for you. YOU make your needs be met.

 

[koshergrl]

I would pay to know which of the participants in this thread are felons.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would pay to know which of the participants in this thread are felons.

Why?

What difference do you believe that would mean?

 

[Arianrhod]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I take it you're in favor of not putting criminals in prison. Go figure.

I do think we put too many people in prison for too long for some crimes. A large part of the prison population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. Locking them up, along with the guys who are behind in child support, couldn't pay a fine, embezzlers etc. don't use guns, may not even own guns. Their incarceration has no effect on the process that turns legal guns into illegal guns.

You have tried to deflect the issue away from the lax gun laws that allow illegal guns to be created from legal guns effortlessly. The criminal justice system has nothing to do with gun show loopholes, fuzzy background checks, trivial dealer licensing etc. etc. I know why you don't: you can't. It's been a lot of fun anyhow...

Your entire post there is logical fallacy. You state as fact things that are NOT fact, and move on from there. There isn't even anything of enough value to respond to...none of it is true.

Refute it, then.

 

[Fishlore]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I think this is a focus on the entirely wrong thing in imprisonment. We have such a high incarceration rate because we are locking people up for victimless crimes that should never have been there in the first place. Worse, that process CREATES criminals rather than reforms them. If you end up in jail for a year on a simple possession charge you leave that institution with almost no prospects for employment, virtually no way to legally support yourself and no real hope for ever improving that situation. It may not be impossible to do so but the system itself creates barriers for no tangible benefit that I can see. then we all hear about crimes that are heinous but get little to no time or get out early and repeat the offense. Rapists and child molesters are the poster children for this.

I think there needs to be a concerted effort to lock up the RIGHT people more than locking up more people and an even larger effort to reintegrate those that are locked up back into society. Prison should not just be a cage unless you are never planning on letting that individual out for the rest of their lives.

Our incarceration rate is also boosted by sentences much longer than those for the same offense in the advanced democracies. Our sentencing is driven more by punishment and revenge than social scientific research on recidivism.

 

[FA_Q2]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I think this is a focus on the entirely wrong thing in imprisonment. We have such a high incarceration rate because we are locking people up for victimless crimes that should never have been there in the first place. Worse, that process CREATES criminals rather than reforms them. If you end up in jail for a year on a simple possession charge you leave that institution with almost no prospects for employment, virtually no way to legally support yourself and no real hope for ever improving that situation. It may not be impossible to do so but the system itself creates barriers for no tangible benefit that I can see. then we all hear about crimes that are heinous but get little to no time or get out early and repeat the offense. Rapists and child molesters are the poster children for this.

I think there needs to be a concerted effort to lock up the RIGHT people more than locking up more people and an even larger effort to reintegrate those that are locked up back into society. Prison should not just be a cage unless you are never planning on letting that individual out for the rest of their lives.

Our incarceration rate is also boosted by sentences much longer than those for the same offense in the advanced democracies. Our sentencing is driven more by punishment and revenge than social scientific research on recidivism.

Like?

 

[320 Years of History]

I think this is a focus on the entirely wrong thing in imprisonment. We have such a high incarceration rate because we are locking people up for victimless crimes that should never have been there in the first place. Worse, that process CREATES criminals rather than reforms them. If you end up in jail for a year on a simple possession charge you leave that institution with almost no prospects for employment, virtually no way to legally support yourself and no real hope for ever improving that situation. It may not be impossible to do so but the system itself creates barriers for no tangible benefit that I can see. then we all hear about crimes that are heinous but get little to no time or get out early and repeat the offense. Rapists and child molesters are the poster children for this.

I think there needs to be a concerted effort to lock up the RIGHT people more than locking up more people and an even larger effort to reintegrate those that are locked up back into society. Prison should not just be a cage unless you are never planning on letting that individual out for the rest of their lives.

Red:
I presume you refer to something along the lines of the points made here: Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population .

That essay asserts:

Drug offenses are self-explanatory as being victimless, but so too are public-order offenses, which also fall under the victimless crimes category. Public order offenses include such things as immigration, weapons charges, public drunkenness, selling lemonade without a license, dancing in public, feeding the homeless without a permit etc..​

I don't entirely agree (I do somewhat agree) that drug offenses are victimless (beyond the drug user) or that public disorder crimes are completely without negative impacts that transcend the offender. Also, though several of the specific public disorder crimes cited are even in my mind innocuous and deserve little more "punishment" than being told sternly to cease and desist, that is not so for all public disorder crimes.

I know roughly that drug offenses carry sentencing terms that can and likely do contribute to there being more people incarcerated at any given moment than there would be were their offences not criminal ones, whereas many other public disorder crimes may have little or no impact on prison/jail population sizes. The thing is that when one looks at a population of prisoners/jailed folks, one cannot merely look at the quantity of people incarcerated. A central thing that one must also look at along with the simple figure is how long a person remains in jail/prison, or more precisely, what hoteliers would refer to as the "occupancy rate." Of course, if the jails and prisons remain "fully occupied" for 365 days a year, the simple figure is relevant. I don't know if that is indeed the case, that is, whether jails (short term sentences) and prisons (long term sentences) remain at capacity all year.

Questions that come to my mind on any debatable aspect of our penal system include those pertaining to:

• incarceration rates,
• recidivism rates,
• cultural values re: law enforcement, that is enforcing the laws on the books,
• cultural values re: what should be illegal and what should not (this is clearly a judgment call),
• whether something the citizenry is keen to do in spite of its illegality should remain illegal, that is, whether it makes sense to persist in having a law citizens are, by and large, unwilling to follow,
• jail/prison population size (size in and of itself, however, doesn't strike me as a problem, but the management and maintenance of incarcerated persons can be a challenge, one that can be handled to varying degrees of effectiveness), and
• sentencing terms.

As a matter of law enforcement principles and theory, if the law is "on the books," it needs to be (1) enforced, or (2) repealed, or (3) modified (either the law itself or the potential penalties assigned for breaking it/them). I agree that some public disorder crimes should not be crimes, or if they are, the punishment for them is a fine but not incarceration.

Blue:
Though I don't believe I have the best answer to the questions I might ask on this matter, I am certain of one thing. It is not the process of enforcing existing laws that creates criminals. Sure, something causes people to act criminally, but arresting and incarcerating law breakers is not it.

One thing that ostensibly creates criminals is declaring an act to be criminal, but that would be a legislative process problem/failing, not an enforcement problem/failing. It could also be also that cultural myopia, misassignment of blame, zeal, or perhaps other things "create" criminals. My better judgment tells me there's ample blame to be shared among offenders, the general public, legislators, and perhaps even executive branch enforcers (depending on their tactics and policies, but not on whether they merely enforce a law) when it comes to the matter of who and what "creates criminals." There is no single, and probably no single "materially greater than the others" cause either, IMO.

Green:
That too is not at all the fault of the offender or law enforcers. The blame for that being the normal consequence faced by most offenders rests squarely in the laps of the general public. Our nation has a principle that says when one breaks the law, one is assigned a penalty. After satisfying the penalty served, one is supposed to be "restored to a neutral" position, that is no longer guilty and no longer owing a penal debt to society. The problem is that society doesn't treat released criminals in accordance with that principle.

Here, I'm not taking on whether society should consider time served as payment for a given crime. What I'm saying instead is that, as a society, we need come to grips with and be clear about what it is we believe as goes crime and punishment and just say so. Whichever way our society opts to go re: the principle noted above, that then becomes the reality. If indeed, as it appears now, we do not consider time served as sufficient payment for crime, and instead we (society) want to say that in addition to time served behind bars, a life of unrelenting poverty and/or "second class" citizen status is part of the penalty all criminals deserve, then so be it. But at least just say so in the affirmative. Doing that will make it clear what the entirety of the penalty is for breaking the law, or at least those laws that carry jail/prison sentences.

We also have a problem in our society whereby we don't even uniformly apply the "one is a criminal forever" standard you describe in the green text. Take for example Martha Stewart. Is she suffering now after having gone to jail? I know she's not. Ditto Robert Downey, Jr., Nichole Richie, Michael Vick, Christian Slater, and Tim Allen. The willingness to forgive is not limited to celebrities. (I didn't llist the non-celeb names because I don't even recognize them, but I knew they had to exist.) That said, the incidence of folks' overcoming the stigma of having done time is more often what you describe than it is what Ms. Stewart et al experience after having done their time.

The points I'm making are that we need to be consistent in our application of the principles to which claim to adhere and that the injustice you describe is not the fault of law enforcement or the penal system. Of course, for the offender, they have only themselves to blame, for very, very few if any of them committed their crime while under duress to do so.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think this is a focus on the entirely wrong thing in imprisonment. We have such a high incarceration rate because we are locking people up for victimless crimes that should never have been there in the first place. Worse, that process CREATES criminals rather than reforms them. If you end up in jail for a year on a simple possession charge you leave that institution with almost no prospects for employment, virtually no way to legally support yourself and no real hope for ever improving that situation. It may not be impossible to do so but the system itself creates barriers for no tangible benefit that I can see. then we all hear about crimes that are heinous but get little to no time or get out early and repeat the offense. Rapists and child molesters are the poster children for this.

I think there needs to be a concerted effort to lock up the RIGHT people more than locking up more people and an even larger effort to reintegrate those that are locked up back into society. Prison should not just be a cage unless you are never planning on letting that individual out for the rest of their lives.

Red:
I presume you refer to something along the lines of the points made here: Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population .

That essay asserts:

Drug offenses are self-explanatory as being victimless, but so too are public-order offenses, which also fall under the victimless crimes category. Public order offenses include such things as immigration, weapons charges, public drunkenness, selling lemonade without a license, dancing in public, feeding the homeless without a permit etc..​

I don't entirely agree (I do somewhat agree) that drug offenses are victimless (beyond the drug user) or that public disorder crimes are completely without negative impacts that transcend the offender. Also, though several of the specific public disorder crimes cited are even in my mind innocuous and deserve little more "punishment" than being told sternly to cease and desist, that is not so for all public disorder crimes.

Certainly but that really is not in contention. I will never state that 100 percent of those 'victimless' crimes should be ignored or not come with some sort of jail sentence. However, there is a blatantly obvious problem when you are supposed to be a beacon of freedom and yet have the highest incarceration rate in the first world. It is also blatantly an issue when the MAJORITY of those in prison are there for a victimless crime. That number should be reversed - 80+ percent of the incarcerated population should be there because they violated another's freedom not because they did something uncle sam thinks is 'wrong.' Our current definition of a lawful and just society is sickeningly twisted.

I know roughly that drug offenses carry sentencing terms that can and likely do contribute to there being more people incarcerated at any given moment than there would be were their offences not criminal ones, whereas many other public disorder crimes may have little or no impact on prison/jail population sizes. The thing is that when one looks at a population of prisoners/jailed folks, one cannot merely look at the quantity of people incarcerated. A central thing that one must also look at along with the simple figure is how long a person remains in jail/prison, or more precisely, what hoteliers would refer to as the "occupancy rate." Of course, if the jails and prisons remain "fully occupied" for 365 days a year, the simple figure is relevant. I don't know if that is indeed the case, that is, whether jails (short term sentences) and prisons (long term sentences) remain at capacity all year.

Questions that come to my mind on any debatable aspect of our penal system include those pertaining to:

• incarceration rates,
• recidivism rates,
• cultural values re: law enforcement, that is enforcing the laws on the books,
• cultural values re: what should be illegal and what should not (this is clearly a judgment call),
• whether something the citizenry is keen to do in spite of its illegality should remain illegal, that is, whether it makes sense to persist in having a law citizens are, by and large, unwilling to follow,
• jail/prison population size (size in and of itself, however, doesn't strike me as a problem, but the management and maintenance of incarcerated persons can be a challenge, one that can be handled to varying degrees of effectiveness), and
• sentencing terms.

As a matter of law enforcement principles and theory, if the law is "on the books," it needs to be (1) enforced, or (2) repealed, or (3) modified (either the law itself or the potential penalties assigned for breaking it/them). I agree that some public disorder crimes should not be crimes, or if they are, the punishment for them is a fine but not incarceration.

No argument here. Laws do not need to be ignored - they need to be changed/repealed. On a rather large scale IMHO.

Blue:
Though I don't believe I have the best answer to the questions I might ask on this matter, I am certain of one thing. It is not the process of enforcing existing laws that creates criminals. Sure, something causes people to act criminally, but arresting and incarcerating law breakers is not it.

This I take MAJOR issues with. It is blatantly false.

The simple fact of the matter is that the incarceration system is NOT designed to allow a member to leave with any real prospects of employment. That directly leads to a much higher likelihood of criminal activity. They are also generally giving nothing to do other than increasing their physical strength and network with other criminals. The system itself is not designed to reform criminals - just simply cage them for the given period of time.

I have known a few such individuals and dealt with the courts myself over something as simple as a traffic ticket. Being in that situation when you cannot afford to pay a particular fine I can tell you that the system literally tries to drag you down until you feel that you have no other option at all.

One thing that ostensibly creates criminals is declaring an act to be criminal, but that would be a legislative process problem/failing, not an enforcement problem/failing. It could also be also that cultural myopia, misassignment of blame, zeal, or perhaps other things "create" criminals. My better judgment tells me there's ample blame to be shared among offenders, the general public, legislators, and perhaps even executive branch enforcers (depending on their tactics and policies, but not on whether they merely enforce a law) when it comes to the matter of who and what "creates criminals." There is no single, and probably no single "materially greater than the others" cause either, IMO.

Never claimed it was a single factor. I am claiming that it is a factor and that is flushed out by the fact that so many people end up returning to prison. It is cultural as well - people will not hire felons and that means it is far more difficult to return as a productive member of society.

I think one small step in the right direction to this is that such records should be completely sealed and not accessible by anyone outside of the government itself. Once you have paid your debt it should be paid.

Green:
That too is not at all the fault of the offender or law enforcers. The blame for that being the normal consequence faced by most offenders rests squarely in the laps of the general public. Our nation has a principle that says when one breaks the law, one is assigned a penalty. After satisfying the penalty served, one is supposed to be "restored to a neutral" position, that is no longer guilty and no longer owing a penal debt to society. The problem is that society doesn't treat released criminals in accordance with that principle.

Here, I'm not taking on whether society should consider time served as payment for a given crime. What I'm saying instead is that, as a society, we need come to grips with and be clear about what it is we believe as goes crime and punishment and just say so. Whichever way our society opts to go re: the principle noted above, that then becomes the reality. If indeed, as it appears now, we do not consider time served as sufficient payment for crime, and instead we (society) want to say that in addition to time served behind bars, a life of unrelenting poverty and/or "second class" citizen status is part of the penalty all criminals deserve, then so be it. But at least just say so in the affirmative. Doing that will make it clear what the entirety of the penalty is for breaking the law, or at least those laws that carry jail/prison sentences.

We also have a problem in our society whereby we don't even uniformly apply the "one is a criminal forever" standard you describe in the green text. Take for example Martha Stewart. Is she suffering now after having gone to jail? I know she's not. Ditto Robert Downey, Jr., Nichole Richie, Michael Vick, Christian Slater, and Tim Allen. The willingness to forgive is not limited to celebrities. (I didn't llist the non-celeb names because I don't even recognize them, but I knew they had to exist.) That said, the incidence of folks' overcoming the stigma of having done time is more often what you describe than it is what Ms. Stewart et al experience after having done their time.

The points I'm making are that we need to be consistent in our application of the principles to which claim to adhere and that the injustice you describe is not the fault of law enforcement or the penal system. Of course, for the offender, they have only themselves to blame, for very, very few if any of them committed their crime while under duress to do so.

Consistency is a lofty goal. Unfortunately our justice system is designed to handle those with money in a MUCH different manner than those without. That is another problem altogether though that could take its own thread and then some as it is a very complex solution even if the problem is so simply stated.

 

[320 Years of History]

Certainly but that really is not in contention. I will never state that 100 percent of those 'victimless' crimes should be ignored or not come with some sort of jail sentence. However, there is a blatantly obvious problem when you are supposed to be a beacon of freedom and yet have the highest incarceration rate in the first world. It is also blatantly an issue when the MAJORITY of those in prison are there for a victimless crime. That number should be reversed - 80+ percent of the incarcerated population should be there because they violated another's freedom not because they did something uncle sam thinks is 'wrong.' Our current definition of a lawful and just society is sickeningly twisted.

Red:
Why might not the observed incarceration rate be essentially a manifestation of some people (too many apparently) behaving along the lines of "give them an inch, and they take a mile?"

This I take MAJOR issues with. It is blatantly false.

The simple fact of the matter is that the incarceration system is NOT designed to allow a member to leave with any real prospects of employment. That directly leads to a much higher likelihood of criminal activity. They are also generally giving nothing to do other than increasing their physical strength and network with other criminals. The system itself is not designed to reform criminals - just simply cage them for the given period of time.

I have known a few such individuals and dealt with the courts myself over something as simple as a traffic ticket. Being in that situation when you cannot afford to pay a particular fine I can tell you that the system literally tries to drag you down until you feel that you have no other option at all.

Red:
No, it's not designed to do that, but that hardly makes my statement false. That the penal system isn't designed to reform criminals does not remotely mean that it creates criminals. One must demonstrate one's criminality prior to entering a penal facility. Therefore, it is simply not possible for the penal system/facility to create a criminal.

We can put money in a bank and create additional money for ourselves. We can perform coitus and create new life. We simply do not put non-criminals in jail and have pop out a persons who are criminals.

Blue:
That one feels that way does not mean they in fact have no other option. Adopting a life of crime after having been incarcerated is just one of the options available to such persons. One may not like the alternative life/career choices, but they absolutely do exist, and one is well advised to choose one of them over choosing to pursue a life of crime, and that's so no matter what one thinks about the justness of the laws one is inclined to break.

Never claimed it was a single factor. I am claiming that it is a factor and that is flushed out by the fact that so many people end up returning to prison. It is cultural as well - people will not hire felons and that means it is far more difficult to return as a productive member of society

I think one small step in the right direction to this is that such records should be completely sealed and not accessible by anyone outside of the government itself. Once you have paid your debt it should be paid.

Red:
Agree to the extent that when you wrote "will not hire" you actually meant "are loath to hire."

(You seem reasonable and I suspect "loath to hire" is what you meant; I'm just making sure.)

Blue:
I agree, at least in general. What I would see happen is that employers have the ability to ask if a person has a history of committing one or a small handful of crimes that bear direct relevance to the task they might be hired to perform. The problem is that currently, employers are permitted to ask "what have you been convicted of" not "have you been convicted of X, Y, or Z" specifically.

For example, I think that sort of policy would need to include "carve outs" whereby, say, employers hiring for a position that necessarily involves lots of activity with kids can find out if an applicant was a child molester, or a bank (perhaps other employers) can find out whether an applicant was found guilty of some form of theft. On the other hand, say, an employer evaluating a person for a job as a patent/intellectual property attorney probably has no need to know whether one was a child molester because, quite frankly, few to no children submit patent applications or are party to intellectual property infringement matters, and such an attorney would have no foreseeable professional cause to interact with children.

Consistency is a lofty goal. Unfortunately our justice system is designed to handle those with money in a MUCH different manner than those without. That is another problem altogether though that could take its own thread and then some as it is a very complex solution even if the problem is so simply stated.

Red:
Does the penal system actually handle wealthy folks differently? I don't know; I've never been incarcerated. I feel as though the legal system, specifically getting the best possible outcome in a criminal trial, often makes having considerable wealth a distinct advantage. I'm not nearly as confident that upon being incarcerated that wealth matters much.

One thing I think matters a lot is the set of principles, skills and abilities one had upon entering prison/jail. As you alluded, one isn't go behind bars with a given set of those things and emerge with a dramatically different set.

 

[FA_Q2]

Certainly but that really is not in contention. I will never state that 100 percent of those 'victimless' crimes should be ignored or not come with some sort of jail sentence. However, there is a blatantly obvious problem when you are supposed to be a beacon of freedom and yet have the highest incarceration rate in the first world. It is also blatantly an issue when the MAJORITY of those in prison are there for a victimless crime. That number should be reversed - 80+ percent of the incarcerated population should be there because they violated another's freedom not because they did something uncle sam thinks is 'wrong.' Our current definition of a lawful and just society is sickeningly twisted.

Red:
Why might not the observed incarceration rate be essentially a manifestation of some people (too many apparently) behaving along the lines of "give them an inch, and they take a mile?"

Irrelevant. It does not change the fact that there is a serious problem when we think of ourselves as a nation of freedom when we have more people in chains than any other first world nation. We should be ashamed of that fact.

This I take MAJOR issues with. It is blatantly false.

The simple fact of the matter is that the incarceration system is NOT designed to allow a member to leave with any real prospects of employment. That directly leads to a much higher likelihood of criminal activity. They are also generally giving nothing to do other than increasing their physical strength and network with other criminals. The system itself is not designed to reform criminals - just simply cage them for the given period of time.

I have known a few such individuals and dealt with the courts myself over something as simple as a traffic ticket. Being in that situation when you cannot afford to pay a particular fine I can tell you that the system literally tries to drag you down until you feel that you have no other option at all.

Red:
No, it's not designed to do that, but that hardly makes my statement false. That the penal system isn't designed to reform criminals does not remotely mean that it creates criminals. One must demonstrate one's criminality prior to entering a penal facility. Therefore, it is simply not possible for the penal system/facility to create a criminal.

We can put money in a bank and create additional money for ourselves. We can perform coitus and create new life. We simply do not put non-criminals in jail and have pop out a persons who are criminals.

You assume that you place a criminal in one end and then one pops out at the other. If that is the case then why have anyone ever leave jail at all?

After you have served your time you are no longer a criminal. A proper penal system MUST attempt to reintegrate you into society in order to keep you that way. Our penal system does the exact opposite. It does so because the ‘punishment’ part is extremely easy. What is very difficult is trying to reform rather than punish. The idea of punishment and vengeance are rather archaic for the penal system for the vast majority of crime. I am not referring to the murderers and rapists out there but those that are in for much smaller things.

Blue:
That one feels that way does not mean they in fact have no other option. Adopting a life of crime after having been incarcerated is just one of the options available to such persons. One may not like the alternative life/career choices, but they absolutely do exist, and one is well advised to choose one of them over choosing to pursue a life of crime, and that's so no matter what one thinks about the justness of the laws one is inclined to break.

‘Advised’ is all they are going to get about returning to crime. Then every actual material reality is going to push in exactly the opposite direction.

Never claimed it was a single factor. I am claiming that it is a factor and that is flushed out by the fact that so many people end up returning to prison. It is cultural as well - people will not hire felons and that means it is far more difficult to return as a productive member of society

I think one small step in the right direction to this is that such records should be completely sealed and not accessible by anyone outside of the government itself. Once you have paid your debt it should be paid.

Red:
Agree to the extent that when you wrote "will not hire" you actually meant "are loath to hire."

(You seem reasonable and I suspect "loath to hire" is what you meant; I'm just making sure.)

Yes, absolutes are not something that I tend to deal in. It is very difficult for a felon to get a real job.

Blue:
I agree, at least in general. What I would see happen is that employers have the ability to ask if a person has a history of committing one or a small handful of crimes that bear direct relevance to the task they might be hired to perform. The problem is that currently, employers are permitted to ask "what have you been convicted of" not "have you been convicted of X, Y, or Z" specifically.

For example, I think that sort of policy would need to include "carve outs" whereby, say, employers hiring for a position that necessarily involves lots of activity with kids can find out if an applicant was a child molester, or a bank (perhaps other employers) can find out whether an applicant was found guilty of some form of theft. On the other hand, say, an employer evaluating a person for a job as a patent/intellectual property attorney probably has no need to know whether one was a child molester because, quite frankly, few to no children submit patent applications or are party to intellectual property infringement matters, and such an attorney would have no foreseeable professional cause to interact with children.

That is reasonable.

Consistency is a lofty goal. Unfortunately our justice system is designed to handle those with money in a MUCH different manner than those without. That is another problem altogether though that could take its own thread and then some as it is a very complex solution even if the problem is so simply stated.

Red:
Does the penal system actually handle wealthy folks differently? I don't know; I've never been incarcerated. I feel as though the legal system, specifically getting the best possible outcome in a criminal trial, often makes having considerable wealth a distinct advantage. I'm not nearly as confident that upon being incarcerated that wealth matters much.

Absolutely.
Take A Tour Of America's Cushiest Prison

Young Moose released from jail to film movie with actors from 'The Wire'

It is night and day between what a wealthy person ‘endures’ and the average Joe. I guarantee you no one in Pomona jail (a poor city in CA) is wandering the grassy knolls in their free time or going to work. The concessions made are asinine IMHO.

One thing I think matters a lot is the set of principles, skills and abilities one had upon entering prison/jail. As you alluded, one isn't go behind bars with a given set of those things and emerge with a dramatically different set.

They need to. Not ‘drastically’ different but certainly some new ones and some actual prospects.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

1. If you hang out in an area known for violence and crime, yes, your chances are greater.
Right now there is a response movement in Houston calling for No More Bloodshed to
address police and related violence by addressing Black on Black violence first and calling for an end.

The pastors pushing for this are well aware of the higher risks of violence and incarceration among Blacks in poor neighborhoods. Of course, it makes sense to focus on solutions where the need and risk is greatest.

2. The problem I find is that Blacks tend to be taught the government is for crooks to run any way they want, without anything people can do about it, so the most you can do is hope they get you more benefits.

There is not as much cultural history in terms of teaching that our Constitution is for the people to check govt. The history that is more often taught is that "white men" abused laws especially property laws to keep the rich owners in charge and the Blacks and poor as slaves under their control.

I only saw one or two posts teaching anyone that gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights had anything to do with Blacks being able to defend themselves at times where this was opposed.
That's not generally taught or accepted.

So to answer your point, the use of guns is in two different contexts.

The traditional Constitutionalists and conservatives invoke gun ownership in a Constitutional context,
where "we the people are the govt and invoke and defend the Constitution ourselves"
vs.
the teaching of victimhood that "other people run the govt"
so that people are "against the police and govt abusing power"
and using party, church, or other group leaders to represent the people and fight through public media
(since there is not the same understanding of invoking the Constitution and checking govt more directly)

Until that changes, then the cycles and patterns of victimhood and unequal powerlessness create an unhealthy dynamic and strained relations, not just regarding race and class, but between people and govt.

AND SO when you add "guns" to that context, you get people both assuming the other side are the thugs and crooks. Of course this is going to manifest as violence by mixing guns with race issues and attitudes about govt/police coming from two different histories that have not fully reconciled or healed from the past.

3. I'd say it is a popular hot button to cover in the media. So if you want to judge reality by what the media shows you, that is your choice. I find frequency and response "as reported in the media" is more determined by controversy that can be hyped to create buzz for ratings. If an issue is hot, they will pick and choose stories related to ride on that wave, and generate as much following as possible while it's hot.

Seriously 320 Years of History
if you feel you can do more to address the issues of more Blacks getting railroaded into poverty, crime and prisons rather than finding support to stay in school, learn the laws that defend rights to participate equally in government, and own and manage property and business,
I encourage you to find groups you believe have a good model, and support those.

Don't look for things that make more victims, but programs that make more victories.
There is a school in Chicago with a top reputation for getting and keeping kids on a successful academic track for college and scholarships, that focuses on making sure Black students receive the right support.

The nonprofit Center for the Healing of Racism helps people and groups talk through race issues and work on healing themselves and their relations and communities so everyone can work together openly.

If you find your nearest prison outreach program for recovery and work support, or any nonprofit art, radio or educational nonprofit helping poor minorities, these can always use more help to reach people in need.
As Obama found when he looked into reparations, helping resolve economic of the poor minorities would automatically include helping Blacks. Even my conservative friends understand those issues are tied in part to 150 years of slavery and being behind on the cultural learning curve of owning property and management of businesses and govt. Of course it is going to take more education and training with generations starting off way behind. The gaps cannot be denied. In the meantime, yes the risks are greater of ending up in poverty and crime, without proper support and education in finance, law and govt.

The racial resentment and segregation between Blacks and Whites over property laws and govt is a factor.

Anything that helps overcome that would speed up the process of restoring equal grounding.

Obama passed an Executive Order on Excellence in African American Education, and personally
endorsed nonprofit outreach for mentoring under "Brother's Keeper" partnerships with businesses.

The community leaders in my district, of national historic Freed Slave church landmarks,
created a campus plan to convert public housing into sustainable jobs, education and housing:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
If you are interested, can you locate the public housing near you and see if there is any resident advocacy or community volunteer group defending housing rights of residents. And see if they have similar plans.
By connected all such low income neighborhoods and housing projects by radio and internet, these
campus plans can be implemented turning each participating district into a satellite center. So grants can be pursued and funds raised for educational development and program support, where it is needed most.

 

[emilynghiem]

Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Granted, you do hear about more aggression against police..
It doesn't help when people yell "burn this mutha down" and "kill the pigs"

True, it doesn't. But that people yell those things doesn't authorize cops to become killers. People don't yell "burn this mutha down" or "kill the pigs" when the "mutha" is meeting their needs, and when cops aren't "pigs."

I get the idea you've expressed, but the process flow is not "people yell --> cops become 'pigs'." It's "cops behave as "pigs" --> people yell." Remember, we give law enforcement officials, all officials really, our trust before they've done much of anything to earn it, and then we expect them to uphold it. That's very different from one's earning others' trust and then receiving a role, that of being an official.

Hi 320 Years of History
1. First of all it's mutual with DOUBLE ARROWS or a vicious cycle back and forth:
"people yell <--> cops become 'pigs'." <===> It's "cops behave as "pigs" <--> people yell."

2. The path to a solution is to address the strained relations directly in safe settings and
not wait until there's a mob in the street yelling and out of control threatening not to follow laws.
Or you get more of the same:
"people yell <--> cops become 'pigs'." <===> It's "cops behave as "pigs" <--> people yell."

3. Once good faith relations are restored, which may take each district community or neighborhood hiring its own police patrol (similar to private campus police) and everyone knowing each other up front, no surprises.
THEN maybe there can be MUTUAL trust.

From the perspective of police, what commitment have citizens made to follow laws and agree to procedures? Has this even been discussed what the ground rules are, what the procedures are,
and what to do if something goes wrong, conflicts escalate, what are people and police supposed to do?

If everyone meets and learns what the expectations and rules are, there can be trust and agreement to stick to those rules. You are right there is no respect earned yet, but again, it is mutual. So why not address that on both side, establish respect for relations and rules, and start over from there. Here are some sample rules: ethics-commission.net

I am sharing these with teachers and volunteers with public radio trying to address the prison and police issues affecting the Black and minority communities in greater proportion. So education and training on laws, and trying to keep people out of jail and in jobs and school will keep people and resources invested in neighborhood development instead of going to pay more courts, more police, more prisons, etc. We are planning meetings now to launch a bigger initiative. If you are concerned about longterm solutions, we need to organize in every city.
Let me know if this is a big issue for you, maybe connecting by radio and internet will multiply the efforts and fundraising when we get the solutions together to ask for national public support.

Take care and I hope we can organize around this if it is one of your key issues or callings.
Yours truly, Emily

 

[Kalki]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Is it only I who is beginning to feel that being white in America has a pretty high risk of being fatal, and is becoming dangerous? Read, 'White Girl Bleed a Lot' by Colin Flaherty

“…The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists…
…Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.” - Noel Ignatiev, Jew Harvard professor and founder of Race Traitor.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Is it only I who is beginning to feel that being white in America has a pretty high risk of being fatal, and is becoming dangerous? Read, 'White Girl Bleed a Lot' by Colin Flaherty

“…The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists…
…Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.” - Noel Ignatiev, Jew Harvard professor and founder of Race Traitor.

Dear Kalki and 320 Years of History
It used to be an old joke. That because Catholics believe in large families but not birth control, then they will eventually take over by numbers alone (while those who believe in abortion and homosexuality will not procreate and will kill themselves off over time).

But if you saw the movie "Idiocracy" this took the concept that
the uneducated population who turned out more and more babies would take over the planet.
And leave the rare people who actually can think as like endangered species vastly outnumbered.

I have long argued that the saints and monks and nuns who serve the world don't multiply.
But the people who do are the ones having sex indiscriminantly, raping and trafficking women and girls,
having children very young and becoming grandparents by age 35-40, or some men having 100's of kids they have never met much less have working relations with.

The educated wealthier people who wait until they are financially stable to have kids
are waiting till they are in their 30s or sometimes 40s to have children, and might have 1-2 because they want to be fair to those children and provide so they can be independent by 18 and go to college, etc.

But look who is maxing out the welfare rolls. A friend of mine is trying to help a 24 year old mother with 4 kids to feed, and who had been working as an escort/prostitute since 16 since that's what keeps a roof over their heads.

Meanwhile I know of three brothers who are all working, financially independent, and in stable relations, but aren't having children because of the responsibility they know it takes.

So guess which group is populating the planet

The worst part of all this, the people on the poorest level often have no concept of how much work it really takes to run a household and raise kids responsibly WITHOUT relying on govt assistance. It's like this is already ASSUMED and factored in as part of the equation.

So how can there be any real independence, if people are brought up depending on outside assistance from an unnatural source to pay for food, housing and kids.

How can people be equal if some people are brought up not to depend on govt,
while others are. Their thinking is not even the same. The perception of the value of work,
and how many labor hours it really takes to raise a child and send them through school.

There are books written on the difference in rental mentality vs. ownership mentality,
"rich dad poor dad", scarcity mentality and abundance mentality.

That is the real difference in classes, and it takes real education and longterm training
to break out of the dependence mentality and teach people how to be equal owners in society.

We have a ways to go. That's why I recommend setting up campus plans for each community to organize people by their level of management skills, and give assistance to work their way up the scale so all people can be equal, or can choose to mentor under someone else if they aren't ready for that level of responsibility. We need tracks to get people out of these ruts that govt programs etch them into, from welfare and prisons, rewarding them for remaining dependent.

WE need to do the opposite and reward people for becoming independent.
I recommend watching the movie "Idiocracy" which I consider the most
authentic horror comedy I've ever watched. It is so real it is scary to me.

 

[Kalki]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Is it only I who is beginning to feel that being white in America has a pretty high risk of being fatal, and is becoming dangerous? Read, 'White Girl Bleed a Lot' by Colin Flaherty

“…The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists…
…Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.” - Noel Ignatiev, Jew Harvard professor and founder of Race Traitor.

Dear Kalki and 320 Years of History
It used to be an old joke. That because Catholics believe in large families but not birth control, then they will eventually take over by numbers alone (while those who believe in abortion and homosexuality will not procreate and will kill themselves off over time).

But if you saw the movie "Idiocracy" this took the concept that
the uneducated population who turned out more and more babies would take over the planet.
And leave the rare people who actually can think as like endangered species vastly outnumbered.

I have long argued that the saints and monks and nuns who serve the world don't multiply.
But the people who do are the ones having sex indiscriminantly, raping and trafficking women and girls,
having children very young and becoming grandparents by age 35-40, or some men having 100's of kids they have never met much less have working relations with.

The educated wealthier people who wait until they are financially stable to have kids
are waiting till they are in their 30s or sometimes 40s to have children, and might have 1-2 because they want to be fair to those children and provide so they can be independent by 18 and go to college, etc.

But look who is maxing out the welfare rolls. A friend of mine is trying to help a 24 year old mother with 4 kids to feed, and who had been working as an escort/prostitute since 16 since that's what keeps a roof over their heads.

Meanwhile I know of three brothers who are all working, financially independent, and in stable relations, but aren't having children because of the responsibility they know it takes.

So guess which group is populating the planet

The worst part of all this, the people on the poorest level often have no concept of how much work it really takes to run a household and raise kids responsibly WITHOUT relying on govt assistance. It's like this is already ASSUMED and factored in as part of the equation.

So how can there be any real independence, if people are brought up depending on outside assistance from an unnatural source to pay for food, housing and kids.

How can people be equal if some people are brought up not to depend on govt,
while others are. Their thinking is not even the same. The perception of the value of work,
and how many labor hours it really takes to raise a child and send them through school.

There are books written on the difference in rental mentality vs. ownership mentality,
"rich dad poor dad", scarcity mentality and abundance mentality.

That is the real difference in classes, and it takes real education and longterm training
to break out of the dependence mentality and teach people how to be equal owners in society.

We have a ways to go. That's why I recommend setting up campus plans for each community to organize people by their level of management skills, and give assistance to work their way up the scale so all people can be equal, or can choose to mentor under someone else if they aren't ready for that level of responsibility. We need tracks to get people out of these ruts that govt programs etch them into, from welfare and prisons, rewarding them for remaining dependent.

WE need to do the opposite and reward people for becoming independent.
I recommend watching the movie "Idiocracy" which I consider the most
authentic horror comedy I've ever watched. It is so real it is scary to me.

emilynghiem
emilynghiem
Emilynghiem, You are correct in what the future will be. This was prophesied to happen long ago. Read the puranas. Read Rene Guenon; read Julius Evola.

This age is called kaliyuga for a reason. Look up the 4 Ages of Man and the Greeks. Or read the Edda and ragnarok.

In this world, only those who kill and oppress will inherit it. Therefore, the most evil will populate the planet in the long run. This is guaranteed. Same with what you said about those who reproduce the most, they are guaranteed to defeat the minorities in the world, and whites are one of the minorities on this earth, among others.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Is it only I who is beginning to feel that being white in America has a pretty high risk of being fatal, and is becoming dangerous? Read, 'White Girl Bleed a Lot' by Colin Flaherty

“…The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists…
…Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.” - Noel Ignatiev, Jew Harvard professor and founder of Race Traitor.

Dear Kalki and 320 Years of History
It used to be an old joke. That because Catholics believe in large families but not birth control, then they will eventually take over by numbers alone (while those who believe in abortion and homosexuality will not procreate and will kill themselves off over time).

But if you saw the movie "Idiocracy" this took the concept that
the uneducated population who turned out more and more babies would take over the planet.
And leave the rare people who actually can think as like endangered species vastly outnumbered.

I have long argued that the saints and monks and nuns who serve the world don't multiply.
But the people who do are the ones having sex indiscriminantly, raping and trafficking women and girls,
having children very young and becoming grandparents by age 35-40, or some men having 100's of kids they have never met much less have working relations with.

The educated wealthier people who wait until they are financially stable to have kids
are waiting till they are in their 30s or sometimes 40s to have children, and might have 1-2 because they want to be fair to those children and provide so they can be independent by 18 and go to college, etc.

But look who is maxing out the welfare rolls. A friend of mine is trying to help a 24 year old mother with 4 kids to feed, and who had been working as an escort/prostitute since 16 since that's what keeps a roof over their heads.

Meanwhile I know of three brothers who are all working, financially independent, and in stable relations, but aren't having children because of the responsibility they know it takes.

So guess which group is populating the planet

The worst part of all this, the people on the poorest level often have no concept of how much work it really takes to run a household and raise kids responsibly WITHOUT relying on govt assistance. It's like this is already ASSUMED and factored in as part of the equation.

So how can there be any real independence, if people are brought up depending on outside assistance from an unnatural source to pay for food, housing and kids.

How can people be equal if some people are brought up not to depend on govt,
while others are. Their thinking is not even the same. The perception of the value of work,
and how many labor hours it really takes to raise a child and send them through school.

There are books written on the difference in rental mentality vs. ownership mentality,
"rich dad poor dad", scarcity mentality and abundance mentality.

That is the real difference in classes, and it takes real education and longterm training
to break out of the dependence mentality and teach people how to be equal owners in society.

We have a ways to go. That's why I recommend setting up campus plans for each community to organize people by their level of management skills, and give assistance to work their way up the scale so all people can be equal, or can choose to mentor under someone else if they aren't ready for that level of responsibility. We need tracks to get people out of these ruts that govt programs etch them into, from welfare and prisons, rewarding them for remaining dependent.

WE need to do the opposite and reward people for becoming independent.
I recommend watching the movie "Idiocracy" which I consider the most
authentic horror comedy I've ever watched. It is so real it is scary to me.

emilynghiem
emilynghiem
Emilynghiem, You are correct in what the future will be. This was prophesied to happen long ago. Read the puranas. Read Rene Guenon; read Julius Evola.

This age is called kaliyuga for a reason. Look up the 4 Ages of Man and the Greeks. Or read the Edda and ragnarok.

In this world, only those who kill and oppress will inherit it. Therefore, the most evil will populate the planet in the long run. This is guaranteed. Same with what you said about those who reproduce the most, they are guaranteed to defeat the minorities in the world, and whites are one of the minorities on this earth, among others.

Dear Kalki I agree with you that the greedy bullies and those willing to use force and coercion dominate the material realms they control.

The interesting part you bring up is "who will inherit" the world in the end.
The Bible prophecies say the MEEK will inherit the Kingdom of God.
So on the Spiritual level that governs humanity by conscience,
blessed are the peacemakers who shall be called the children of God.

The people who are abused and wronged are owed restitution when justice is served.

So if you look at the world, the big corporate powers borrowing and lending big money back and forth
on a MATERIAL level, they are running their countries and the world into debt.

Who does the actual labor? Slaves in sweatshops this false economy depends on.

So by the time we iron out who owes what, all these countries dealing in billions
OWE the workers and slaves who were abused restitution from the wrongdoers.
So instead of paying corporate welfare at taxpayers expense, paying trillions for the military complex and war contracts,
all that credit can be reimbursed back to the people at the bottom, to rebuild schools and hospital programs,
daycare centers and community facilities for families to support jobs and social services, etc.

Yes, the material world is sold out to the powers that dominate (just like in the Matrix, where materialism controls things on that level).

What are we going to do about the spiritual world, and living by those laws?
The meek, the ones who forgive and serve all people faithfully are the leaders,
the servants of all who shall be chief of all. So on that level, the tables are turned.

The most humble, wise and compassionate, and unconditional are the ones everyone will turn to for leadership.
While everyone else is fighting to be top dog, the very meek at the bottom are going to have more influence in solutions.

So both levels are going on. It is very interesting, and I'm just sorry that it causes so much suffering
for humanity to be this disorganized. There are resources, but they are wasted. People throw away
food in one country, and are starving and eating dirt pies right next door. Both realities are going on simultaneously.

 

[Kalki]

Emilyngheim, money is not real. Power is real. If the money was "taken" from International Finance and Corporations, it would not exist at the level of the poor because it is not real, only the power that the fake money represents is real.

What I mean is there are physical things and then there are artificial numbers in bank accounts. If you took the trillions of dollars from the 1%, and gave it to the poor, for building them such things, who would do the work? The 1% do not have the manpower to build those things for the poor, because the poor are large in number and the 1% is tiny in number, in proportion.

In an ideal world, the wealthy nations are the ones who produce and work the most amount of hours per week and with the best ideas and technology to save time, same with people. Now, the system is not set up that way, in fact it is almost the opposite. However, the point is, the poor themselves would have to build the facilities they need, and they would need to do the work themselves. The 1% could never create those facilities of their own labor simply because the 1% are small in number..

Taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor, is not possible, because that money is not physical things. The money just represents how much power they have, so they can make all of the decisions, in their benefit. It is a scam. Read, 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin, and watch 'The Money Masters' by Bill Still. Then, you may understand what is meant here, and how that dream of taking the money from the rich (which does not exist and is not real) and giving to the poor is not a realistic solution.

The poor will have to work if they want facilities of their own. Now, I know the system as it is, is stacked against them, but the principle of this in an ideal world, would remain the same.

In regards to the Christian Bible, it is not my place to comment much about that. I am not really a huge fan of it. If it gives you some consolation or meaning or purpose, then that is great. My religion is personal and I invented it myself, and it is for myself and a private matter.