Text 21022, 103 rader
Skriven 2008-09-18 09:29:48 av shannon talley (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Ross Cassell
Ärende: Re: Things Change
=========================
Hi Ross,

> So if she enterred into public assistance on January 1st, any children she
> bears within the first nine months or for which she can prove she was 
> pregnant
> with at the time she entered assistance would be covered, after that, they 
> are
> not.

Interesting, but with additional children comes additional financial burdens 
and if she isn't cultivated correctly, she will end up homeless.

> It is about responsibility, it should be hers to see to it that she put 
> off
> further procreation until she is on her own two feet and she should take
> whatever methods of birth control appropriate, on that note even if her
> benifits allow a stipend for the pill/patch or condoms or IUD?

That's another benefit I didn't mention; "Planned Parenthood" is a NATIONAL 
program that provides low cost or free birth control to whomever wants to 
take advantage of it.  I know about it because while I was unemployed, I had 
to help a dependent of mine go and use their program because my insurance 
wouldn't cover it -- and I couldn't afford it at the time.  (I've since 
donated an appropriate amount for compensation).

> See above, being on public assistance should be something she takes
> responsibility for in seeing to it that she doesnt do anything to keep 
> herself
> on it.

The scenario you amended with a solution requires a metric you didn't 
mention; a councilor of sorts who has time to help her learn responsibility. 
I don't know how it is in every community, but in mine -- there aren't 
enough councilors to assist, and they only make about 30-40k per year --  
which isn't a competitive salary here in this area.  So, I'll contend that 
in order to make your scenario work, you have to have a subject willing and 
able to learn responsibility -- which I'm sure there are those out there who 
do well, and there are many who have enough difficulty putting the crack 
pipe down long enough to learn responsibility.  But it also requires more 
money being allocated to the program to provide enough labor to make it 
work.

> st> mis-communication).  I believe that "zero tolerance" is absolutely
> st> complete bull; as a society we need to take time and look at each and
> st> every single issue more closely including the items you mentioned.
> Do you believe in the stricter drunk driving laws, they are a form of zero
> tolerance?

Strict laws are one issue, zero tolerance is another.

> I dont have to tell you about the thousands of tragedies that have forced 
> state
> legislatures to tighten up those laws... or do I?
Have they really worked?  Are DWI arrests really  being driven down?  In 
some states DWI cases are up.  The question is, 'are these laws really 
working'?  I would contend they do, but not as much as we are lead to 
believe.

> What about three strikes legislation?
> What is society to do with repeat offenders whom just wont stop offending?

Someone is arrested 3 times for possession of a joint.  This is a natural 
material made by god, grown by humans (or wild in some cases), which poses 
NO risk for the user, has never claimed a life in the 5,000 of recorded 
history (try and make that statement for Alcohol or Tobacco), yet there is a 
"zero tolerance" 3 strikes.  Hell, the drug czar of this country proudly 
stated in an interview (Tuesday?) there are no Americans in jail for simple 
possession of Cannabis, and finding one would be like finding a unicorn 
(damn liar).  There were more than 870,000 arrests last year for Cannabis, 
and 82% of those arrests (more than 700,000 people!!!) were for simple 
possession.  Most of them lost their jobs, many of them lost their homes, 
and many more are still in jail.  For what?  Zero Tolerance.  It just so 
happens that Biden is responsible for much of the "minimum mandatory 
sentencing" legislation.

> You ought to watch Discovery ID channel sometime, they tell some chilling
> stories of criminals whom get released from a 60 to 90 day stint in the 
> county
> lock-up and upon release, the first thing they do is re-offend, often same
> offense.

I agree -- real criminals need to stay in jail -- and real Americans 
(non-criminals) need to be free.  Our existing police state in this country 
is killing us. (different conversation).

> Give this to Obama and you can bet your sweet bippee that the DEMS lose 
> their
> Congressional Majority in 2010.
Maybe -- in fact -- it's likely.

> It is not a bad thing for Washington to have the Legislative Branch and 
> the
> Executive Branch controlled by different parties. Reagan did wonders with 
> it
> and Clinton, despite his other negatives did well..

I don't' necessarily disagree -- there are advantages to both.

Shannon


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)