We ALLOW them to suffer disproportionately! We know single parent families with completely uninvolved ( in fact, proudly uninvolved) fathers have children more likely to commit crimes. We know that young children having children leads to offspring more likely to commit crimes. We know that certain cultural behaviors are criminal and more likely to result in the person being incarcerated. But we won't address it because it's uncomfortable/racist/it's not their fault. It means saying "this community is doing things wrong, you need to change". And providing actual support for that change and not the usual politically correct diatribes and "Hey, that group over there did that to you!" speeches. Nobody will do that.
"But few people are as good as they think they are and most definitely are better when they're being watched." This is true, as much as I wouldn't like it to be. I consider myself a fairly honest person: I've never even stolen a candy bar as a child. One day, opening a new branch, the lead manager asked me to do "Dual Custody" of a recent delivery of cash- she needed to step out and there was only one other teller there. Bank rules require two staff to always be on hand when the vault is open. It was, literally, a three foot square plastic wrapped cube of US cash: Ones, fives, tens, twenties and hundreds. I could see through the plastic at least 100K $ just in the hundreds, and that was only what was visible from the outside. I have never seen so much cash in one place The thoughts that ran through my head, I remember thinking "Hell, if I feel like going crazy and running off with this, I wonder how they keep the barely moral in control". The answer is through watching.
I generally agree with you, However, there are some issues. 1) Having a three years unemployed windows would lead the hiring company to infer they probably were in jail. 2) if the person was in jail for , oh, assault and has anger management issues, you really don't want to hire them for customer service at the local burger joint. The hiring company would then have no way to know how to make that decision. Or theft in charge of handling large amounts of cash. 3) A company does have the right to know the history of who they're hiring.
I don't have an answer, I'm just tossing out some thoughts.
I disagree. Many people who tend to be criminals have a low level of self control. Ankle bracelets, RFID all require them to excercise self control. They have already exhibited an inability to restrain themselves. So you end up with bracelet: violating bracelet, and repeat. Fine him, he won't pay. Force restitution, he just won't do it. Why should he? As long as he's not being violent, you can't "lock him up". You can't really do anything to him.
In California, we recently passed a law removing bail from the system. We were told bail was bad, disproportionately affected the poor and minority communities, and didn't have a direct effect on reducing people from skipping and running. The replacement for bail was going to be an algorithm that takes into account things like past criminal record, mortgage payments, credit rating, credit history--a ton of stuff that all statistically has been shown to influence either slightly or greatly someone's propensity to flee once out of jail awaiting trial. A score would be generated and a cutoff line set: it was to be hit or miss: Stay in jail until trial, or get let out until trial based on how the algorithm determined your flight risk. No payments involved. The Bail industry screamed bloody murder, and it floating a proposition to overturn it. However, the same groups screaming for the removal of bail are now upset because the algorithm is determining that the groups they claimed were being bankrupted by the bail system are high flight risks and cannot be released.
Even a team of humans may not be prepared when something occurs that is unexpected or a system fails in an unexpected way. Not everything can be scripted.
Nationalized healthcare is a good idea, but I don't think other countries realize how much their costs will increase: the US is a cash cow for this, and the money has to come from somewhere. If I was British or Canadian, I'd be sweating about the prospect. Tuition free college would either require much fewer people going to college, a rollout of good 'ol trade schools, or both- not that I'm against the idea. Green new deal would become an enormous money sink. Infrastructure spending is needed quite badly. Higher taxes on top earners would work, but only if you simplify the system. Otherwise, it will be gamed. I'd suggest a sliding scale "flat" tax with absolutely no deductions.
every time I hear this story, this "so and so will be in prison, this will happen", I am reminded of how children run fantasies in their head about the bully, or the teacher, or someone else meeting their demise.
This is silly. you don't become smarter. You just have access to more data. Imagine your idiotic relative suddenly backing up his crazy ideas with "facts" gleaned from the internet instantaneously.
What incessant push back? all I see are cheerleaders for solar. They sold my parents on it twenty years ago, delivering a crappy overpriced hot water heater that was guaranteed to solve all their needs.
I seriously don't believe most of the data regarding "cancer spikes" . I grew up near a supposed cancer spike location, in Ventura County California. My father spent years working on the site. He's 83 now. The independent analysts came in , studied rates, determined they were normal.
To this day, people still point to paid groups who conducted studies intended to prove these supposed spikes. They DEMAND soil radiation levels lower than naturally occurring. They point to little kids getting cancer as proof. It's entirely hysteria driven.
Perhaps there should be, oh, a middle ground. A gray area, if you will, where after a certain number of years, things lose their copyright. Because we should discuss this, rather than the extremes of infinite or no copyright.
Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself. After all, he started so strong with the "apologists for capitalism". Oh, and " no imagination" is not the very definition of conservative. Unless you're using your dictionary wrong.
There's always been a deep state, we just didn't call it that. They are the lifetime aparatchik, the government gatekeepers. We actually need them by necessity, as the government tends to change focus every few years and you need someone with institutional experience.
I keep seeing this argument: "we can't be civil, because the rightwing is a bunch of fuckwit turds and we should murder them in their sleep because of it". And I think to myself: for years I've kept quiet while people in my state have ranted and raved about stupid idiotic nonsense, because it wasn't worth fighting for. And the first time they get pushback, they go absolutely batshit crazy.
You want Stalin?The left is actively eating itself trying to prove who's more "woke", and it's like watching early soviet purges.
Slashdot Mirror
We ALLOW them to suffer disproportionately!
We know single parent families with completely uninvolved ( in fact, proudly uninvolved) fathers have children more likely to commit crimes.
We know that young children having children leads to offspring more likely to commit crimes.
We know that certain cultural behaviors are criminal and more likely to result in the person being incarcerated.
But we won't address it because it's uncomfortable/racist/it's not their fault.
It means saying "this community is doing things wrong, you need to change". And providing actual support for that change and not the usual politically correct diatribes and "Hey, that group over there did that to you!" speeches.
Nobody will do that.
Why would they pay taxes? The marijuana was bought for years illegally. They'll simply keep buying it illegally.
"But few people are as good as they think they are and most definitely are better when they're being watched."
This is true, as much as I wouldn't like it to be. I consider myself a fairly honest person: I've never even stolen a candy bar as a child.
One day, opening a new branch, the lead manager asked me to do "Dual Custody" of a recent delivery of cash- she needed to step out and there was only one other teller there. Bank rules require two staff to always be on hand when the vault is open.
It was, literally, a three foot square plastic wrapped cube of US cash: Ones, fives, tens, twenties and hundreds. I could see through the plastic at least 100K $ just in the hundreds, and that was only what was visible from the outside. I have never seen so much cash in one place
The thoughts that ran through my head, I remember thinking "Hell, if I feel like going crazy and running off with this, I wonder how they keep the barely moral in control". The answer is through watching.
I generally agree with you, However, there are some issues.
1) Having a three years unemployed windows would lead the hiring company to infer they probably were in jail.
2) if the person was in jail for , oh, assault and has anger management issues, you really don't want to hire them for customer service at the local burger joint. The hiring company would then have no way to know how to make that decision. Or theft in charge of handling large amounts of cash.
3) A company does have the right to know the history of who they're hiring.
I don't have an answer, I'm just tossing out some thoughts.
I disagree. Many people who tend to be criminals have a low level of self control. Ankle bracelets, RFID all require them to excercise self control. They have already exhibited an inability to restrain themselves.
So you end up with bracelet: violating bracelet, and repeat. Fine him, he won't pay. Force restitution, he just won't do it. Why should he? As long as he's not being violent, you can't "lock him up". You can't really do anything to him.
In California, we recently passed a law removing bail from the system. We were told bail was bad, disproportionately affected the poor and minority communities, and didn't have a direct effect on reducing people from skipping and running.
The replacement for bail was going to be an algorithm that takes into account things like past criminal record, mortgage payments, credit rating, credit history--a ton of stuff that all statistically has been shown to influence either slightly or greatly someone's propensity to flee once out of jail awaiting trial. A score would be generated and a cutoff line set: it was to be hit or miss: Stay in jail until trial, or get let out until trial based on how the algorithm determined your flight risk. No payments involved. The Bail industry screamed bloody murder, and it floating a proposition to overturn it.
However, the same groups screaming for the removal of bail are now upset because the algorithm is determining that the groups they claimed were being bankrupted by the bail system are high flight risks and cannot be released.
The fact that so many rely on EBT payments speaks to an inherent rot with the US population.
Even a team of humans may not be prepared when something occurs that is unexpected or a system fails in an unexpected way.
Not everything can be scripted.
Nationalized healthcare is a good idea, but I don't think other countries realize how much their costs will increase: the US is a cash cow for this, and the money has to come from somewhere. If I was British or Canadian, I'd be sweating about the prospect.
Tuition free college would either require much fewer people going to college, a rollout of good 'ol trade schools, or both- not that I'm against the idea.
Green new deal would become an enormous money sink.
Infrastructure spending is needed quite badly.
Higher taxes on top earners would work, but only if you simplify the system. Otherwise, it will be gamed. I'd suggest a sliding scale "flat" tax with absolutely no deductions.
Oh yes, you're certain the other team isn't worth shit, because your team is (except for the few bad apples).
every time I hear this story, this "so and so will be in prison, this will happen", I am reminded of how children run fantasies in their head about the bully, or the teacher, or someone else meeting their demise.
This is silly. you don't become smarter. You just have access to more data. Imagine your idiotic relative suddenly backing up his crazy ideas with "facts" gleaned from the internet instantaneously.
What incessant push back? all I see are cheerleaders for solar. They sold my parents on it twenty years ago, delivering a crappy overpriced hot water heater that was guaranteed to solve all their needs.
I seriously don't believe most of the data regarding "cancer spikes" .
I grew up near a supposed cancer spike location, in Ventura County California. My father spent years working on the site. He's 83 now.
The independent analysts came in , studied rates, determined they were normal.
To this day, people still point to paid groups who conducted studies intended to prove these supposed spikes. They DEMAND soil radiation levels lower than naturally occurring. They point to little kids getting cancer as proof. It's entirely hysteria driven.
I heard that Unicorn Farts and Strawberries can also deliver all our power, are less frightening, and are backed up by as much data as your statement.
The point is: if Netflix loses a large portion of library, would you still subscribe?
Perhaps there should be, oh, a middle ground. A gray area, if you will, where after a certain number of years, things lose their copyright.
Because we should discuss this, rather than the extremes of infinite or no copyright.
Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself. After all, he started so strong with the "apologists for capitalism".
Oh, and " no imagination" is not the very definition of conservative. Unless you're using your dictionary wrong.
True, but while I may agree with you, I can also see how people may like them. I also don't like caramel, but I can see why people do...
What are you, fifteen? It's a combination of both. All passion and no profit= no output.. All profit and no passion = crap.
So does shooting the place up, but I wouldn't advocate that either...
I see. Your laziness is a sign of bravery. got it.
This is the 2010s version of "I don't even have a TV..."
There's always been a deep state, we just didn't call it that. They are the lifetime aparatchik, the government gatekeepers. We actually need them by necessity, as the government tends to change focus every few years and you need someone with institutional experience.
I keep seeing this argument: "we can't be civil, because the rightwing is a bunch of fuckwit turds and we should murder them in their sleep because of it".
And I think to myself: for years I've kept quiet while people in my state have ranted and raved about stupid idiotic nonsense, because it wasn't worth fighting for. And the first time they get pushback, they go absolutely batshit crazy.
You want Stalin?The left is actively eating itself trying to prove who's more "woke", and it's like watching early soviet purges.