Lethal Injection Under Fire Again

[Chaerophon]

Right... Because impoverished people commit murder because their poor. That truly helps them get ahead in life. It surely puts food on their cardboard table, and blankets over their shoulders.

I love it when someone brings up the connection between poverty and crime, especially in a discussion involving the death penalty. Find me statistical data that proves a significant (hell, ANY) correlation between poverty and murder. Go ahead. Then you can pull that BS argument in this discussion. Until then, it's a straw man. A distraction. A zero value added post.

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death, anywhere in the U.S. that I know of. Murder and rape of some of the only crimes punishable by death. The order of magnitude between the two is so astounding it amazes me you can even attempt to draw a line connecting them.

This discussion is convoluted enough. Let's not make it any worse, ok?
[right][snapback]107471[/snapback][/right]

You're right Roland, the ghetto and racial gangs are populated by those who never had a chance at success in life because they were born morally bankrupt. /sarcasm

Nice try.

[kandrathe]

Why is a parent presumed incompetent by participants in this conversation?  It seems to me that a rather large urban myth is overtaking the mundane reality.  The presumption of inadequacy smacks of an assumption that the writer, or the "authority," is wiser and more competent than the postulated "parent."
...

I smell an example of a modest sample size being used to feed a generalization.   

Occhi
[right][snapback]107362[/snapback][/right]

Evidence my dear Watson.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/...ummary.htm

For Federal fiscal year 2004, an estimated 3 million children were alleged to have been abused or neglected and received investigations or assessments by State and local child protective services (CPS) agencies. Approximately 872,000 children were determined to be victims of child maltreatment.

About .25%, but ~ .75 million abused children is worth doing something about.

[Chaerophon]

Easy to say until it's your brother, father, sister or mother.

Cheap. That is too much of an assumption to make.

Cheap? Why, because it's true? What assumption? Your response makes no sense.

Funny, there are many countries in the world that HAVE reduced poverty and relative advantage through systematic modification that involves "throwing money at" the problem of inequality

More likely, money disappears into the hands of the corrupt. Money is a means, not an end. Take a basic economics course, and among the first lessons is: Money has no inherent value by itself, it is traded for goods and services. When you throw money at a situation, it disappears into the pockets of whoever is controlling it.

In this context, "throwing money at" the problem was a reference to the correlation in Western countries between more robust social welfare programs, lessened levels of social inequality, and lower incidences of violent crime. Your "lesson" for me is garbled and beside the point. France, Canada, Germany, the UK, all of the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Japan (to name a few) have per capita murder rates less than 1/2 of that in the U.S. Many of these nations also feature very diverse racial makeups. All of these countries have more expansive social welfare programs in place than the U.S. (some to a greater degree than others), and lower (sometimes much lower) levels of income inequality. Not definitively causal (of course), but certainly food for thought... Assault rates are even worse: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/cri

Stinks of herring. Where do you see us proposing we do nothing? Harumph. Getting the knowledge out that these institutions are corrupt is the first step. You cannot do anything until you're first aware of its existence.

You PM me to acknowledge that you had mistaken the context of my posts, and then, when I respond to someone else who has misinterpreted the very same context (and responded to the post that supposedly made you aware of your mistake in the first place) you respond in the exact same knee-jerk way as previously? THREADED VIEW!

Agreed. Poverty and Crime have no direct correlation. There are millions of law abiding poor, and a whole lot of high profile, money embezzeling, drug cartelling, murdering rich. Poverty is irrelevant here.

You and Roland both need to learn to differentiate social trends from specific instances. The fact that "some" or even "a lot" of rich people murder doesn't mean much in the context of our discussion given that that there is a well-documented social trend at play.

A listing of articles that mark a correlation of relative poverty and/or income inequality to violent crime rates. These are links from the World Bank - folks who, in my experience, are not typically thought of as "bleeding hearts":

* Bourguignon, F., 1998, "Crime as a Social Cost of Poverty and Inequality: a review focusing on developing countries", processed, DELTA, Paris.
* Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza, 1998, "Determinants of Crime Rates in Latin America and the World", World Bank Latin America and the Caribbean Viewpoints Series Paper.
* Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza, 1998, "What causes violent crime?", The World Bank, Office of the Chief Economist, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, processed.
* Hsieh, C. and M.D. Pugh, 1993, "Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: a meta-analysis of recent aggregate data studies", Criminal Justice Review, 18(2): 182-202.
* Kennedy, B.P. and I. Kawachi, D. Prothrow-Stith, K. Lochner and B. Gibbs, 1998, "Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime", Social Science and Medicine, 47(1): 7-17.
* Walberg, P., M. McKee, V. Shkolnikov, L. Chenet, D.A. Leon, 1998, "Economic change, crime, and mortality crisis in Russia: regional analysis", British Medical Journal, 317: 312-318.
* Wilson, M. and M. Daly, 1997, "Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighborhoods", British Medical Journal, 314: 1271-1278.

In searching for clues as to the factors contributing to this correlation, an interesting hypothesis from Wilson and Daly (as yet unproven, but they're working on it):

"Criminal violence can be considered an outcome of steep future discounting6 and escalation of risk in social competition.10 This is especially true of homicide in urban parts of the United States, where a large majority of cases involve competition for status or resources among unrelated men7 9 and even marital homicides result from sexual proprietariness in the shadow of male-male competition.14 15 This line of reasoning suggests that criminal violence will vary in relation to local indicators of life expectancy, hence our first hypothesis: homicide rates will vary as a function of local life expectancy."

Sounds reasonable, and promising.

[Occhidiangela]

Evidence my dear Watson.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/...ummary.htm

About .25%, but ~ .75 million abused children is worth doing something about.
[right][snapback]107480[/snapback][/right]

Out of how many parents and how many children? We appear to be focusing on somewhat different issues, mine being the generalization that parents are "generally" held incompetent.

Your percentages support my point. The wards of the state approach may or may not be the best solution, but that is where the tax money goes.

Consider your stats, and know that they are contaminated by the agenda of who reports what. (See again, custody cases.)

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

For Kandrathe:

Out of how many parents and how many children?  We appear to be focusing on somewhat different issues, mine being the generalization that parents are "generally" held incompetent.

Your percentages support my point.  The gross numbers do give one pause. The wards of the state approach may or may not be the best solution, but that is where the tax money goes.

Consider your stats, and know that they are contaminated by the agenda of who reports what. (See again, custody cases.)

For Chaer:

Correlation is not the same as causation between poverty and crime, which is where I was tweaking Mith's nose. The root causes are behavioral. Drasca covers much of the rest.

The zero defects solution Mith suggests is not only unimplementable, but fails to answer the bell for justice, which has the characteristics I noted above.

The nations you allude to with more docile population have in the main sacrificed liberty for security, or have evolved different behavioral norms as a baseline. Does culture and behavior grow from within, or is it imposed from without?

We seem to agree that the incarceration rate is a dead weight on our system, however, I will argue that our incarceration methods and norms are a root cause of that. My thoughts on the prison system, and how it fails to serve us, are for another time, or for never.

Cheers. :)

Occhi

[Drasca]

Cheap?  Why, because it's true?  What assumption?  Your response makes no sensei

Chaerophon, you're wrong, it isn't true for everyone. You assume you're right so much, you can't see any other possibility.

You assume it is true that I'd cry foul for a 'perfect' justice system (none exists, all are subjective) if my family member was sent to death row. For one, they might actually BE guilty. There's no absolute assurance. If there was such an alibi, they wouldn't be on death row. Beyond insane loyalty and faith, if an immediate family member went through fight after fight, and several court appeals given a set of evidence, both exhausts a person and question whether the person is guilty. Secondly, while I'll protest, and protest loudly, I'm no idiot, and neither is the system. There's enough room to go either way, and to get the death penalty takes an extremely high crime with a lot of evidence. I would wonder if the family is really guilty, and if he's not, I've done everything I can, and I will not cry over blood spilled in dubious circumstances.

4 men. Harumph. Those are really good odds, and they only get better for the innocent with better technology. The guilty may actually deserve it, family or not.

France, Canada, Germany, the UK, all of the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Japan (to name a few) have per capita murder rates less than 1/2 of that in the U.S.

Apples to pine forests. Those are all relatively tiny countries compared to the US. Even canada, given that most of canada's landmass is just... wilderness.

These are links from the World Bank - folks who, in my experience, are not typically thought of as "bleeding hearts

You'll find that that not everyone is a supporter of the world bank. Some of us criticize it, to the point that it is a bane on our existence. Certainly there's doubt towards the world bank's motives. I don't disbelieve the Bank finds itself a benefactor to the poor and poverty stricken, and that it is in the world bank's own self interest to support findings that its actions, supposedly to loan money to improve an economic situation, would supposedly alleviate crime.

You'll also find that there are millions of poor homeless people that aren't murdering each other.

Crime is an equal opportunity event.

Let's see.. browsing your titles, I see Paris... not comprable to US concerns. Latin and south americas, those areas have a lot more problems and lawlessness than just poverty leading to criminal behaviour. Russia... beyond my ability to judge.

homicide rates will vary as a function of local life expectancy.

All sound and fury that indicates nothing. They have mathematic relation backwards. Life expectancy varies as a function of homicide... why? Because homicide kills. When people die, life expectancy lowers, not the other way around. These guys would've flunked my algebra classes.

Edit:

Occhi's point of correlation is not causation is the real matter.

[Doc]

Wow, so far, I think this is just about the best death penalty discussion we have ever had at the lounge, and everybody is behaving themselves.

Some of the stuff presented here has caused me to pause and reconsider. Thanks.

[Chaerophon]

Apples to pine forests. Those are all relatively tiny countries compared to the US. Even canada, given that most of canada's landmass is just... wilderness.

In terms of population, thinking of Germany, France, and the U.K. as "relatively tiny" is laughable (I won't comment on Japan since the cultural differences there are so pronounced, but... :whistling:). The U.S. may have a larger mass of people to administrate, but that is one purpose of its federalist structure and division of powers. On the other hand, all of these countries exceed the U.S. in terms of percentage of population in urban settings and population density... It's convenient to think of the U.S. situation as "outside comparisons"...of course, that might be perceived as an effort in stubborn insularity.

You'll find that that not everyone is a supporter of the world bank. Some of us criticize it, to the point that it is a bane on our existence. Certainly there's doubt towards the world bank's motives. I don't disbelieve the Bank finds itself a benefactor to the poor and poverty stricken, and that it is in the world bank's own self interest to support findings that its actions, supposedly to loan money to improve an economic situation, would supposedly alleviate crime.

Personally, I am not a fan of the World Bank, although it has started to clean up its act. However, most of those articles are not their own publications, but are from reputable academic sources.

Let's see.. browsing your titles, I see Paris... not comprable to US concerns. Latin and south americas, those areas have a lot more problems and lawlessness than just poverty leading to criminal behaviour. Russia... beyond my ability to judge.

If you consider only the articles that deal with developed western contexts, you'll find a common theme: under conditions of inequality, impoverishment in particular sectors of society leads to increased rates of violent crime.

You'll also find that there are millions of poor homeless people that aren't murdering each other. 

And we're back to this again. Trends are the key. Would you be more comfortable walking through the projects, or an upper middle class neighbourhood? Why? Is the reason that you are more likely to be the subject of a violent crime in the projects because the its residents are simply incapable of "moral fibre", or does it potentially have to do with systemic bias? Do you see the line that you walk in making such a claim???

Occhi's point of correlation is not causation is the real matter.

The data is there - you seem to have just admitted it. Now in making such distinctions, the key is to point out factors outside of my present consideration that would distort the correlative/causal relation. As I've said, this is not "definitively" a causal relation - I'm sure that there ARE intervening factors. However, the sheer size of the difference between U.S. and other contexts and the convergence of multiple sources of evidence in support of my hypothesis leads me to believe that, although you might make the classic "correlative, not causal" claim, you had better have some specific facts / intervening factors of your own to back it up. Simply saying "these countries are different" amounts to a cop out in my eyes. Comparison has to be relevant in such context; often, it is the basis for institutional reform.

Ultimately, your contention seems to be that this correlation is the result of "behavioural" factors. I find the conclusion that such a belief entails to be beyond repugnant - I refuse to believe that the poor (who are, it must once again be noted, disproportionately made up of disadvantaged racial minorities) are, as a group, inherently lacking in the capacity for "moral fibre".

[Occhidiangela]

Personally, I am not a fan of the World Bank, although it has started to clean up its act. 

By hiring Paul Wolfowitz? Your "liberal" credentials just took a hit. :lol:

However, most of those articles are not their own publications, but are from reputable academic sources.

*restrains self from commenting on edifices made from elephant protuberances*

If you consider only the articles that deal with developed western contexts, you'll find a common theme: under conditions of inequality, impoverishment in particular sectors of society leads to increased rates of violent crime.

Ultimately, your contention seems to be that this correlation is the result of "behavioural" factors.  I find the conclusion that such a belief entails to be beyond repugnant - I refuse to believe that the poor (who are, it must once again be noted, disproportionately made up of disadvantaged racial minorities) are not, as a group, inherently lacking in the capacity for "moral fibre".
[right][snapback]107553[/snapback][/right]

Not all poor are homogenously violent, criminally inclined, et cetera. That is what Drasca has been trying, with apparent lack of success, to get across.

Within the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder are poor but proud, the sort who simply don't commit crime, along with the poor, desparate, and irresponsible.

Your apparent presumption that bias creates criminal activity strikes me as bizarre. The missing behavioral checks, internal and external combined, on criminal or lawless behavior, are, to once again capture Draca's sound point, is not driven by economic status, nor by "minority status," as the hard working Viet Namese of the Gulf Coast demonstrated, in spades, after the boat people hit our shores in the mid 1970's. "Disadvantaged" is an appeal to "victim status" and I say go fish. Not buying that.

Poor but proud is how my Dad grew up. He lost his father when he was 10. Funny, he didn't turn into a criminal, even though he was a child of a poor, non English speaking, minority, single mother where he grew up. His mother and older sister provided the moral discipline he needed to do well in school, to learn English, to work his butt off, and improve his lot in life. He had chances to stray, I don't doubt, but he didn't. Cultural and behavioral discipline, not license, and not a mind set seeking apology for being "disadvantaged."

He did have a mentor, a godfather, whose presence was a norm in a community that did not discard religion, but embraced it. My dad became an Agnostic as a young man, and still is. He spent no time excoriating or condemming Christians, or Jews, or Athiests for their beliefs -- unlike the trendy sneers one sees so often these days -- he just got on with his life and made the best of each situation he encountered.

There was an old saying that a ghetto isn't a place, it is a state of mind. Well, I'll add to that: lawful behavior is a matter of attitude, as is unlawful and criminal behavior. Make whatever excuse you want, we all choose the actions we take. We are not destined to be more unlawful by our ethnic make up.

Occhi

[Doc]

By hiring Paul Wolfowitz?  Your "liberal" credentials just took a hit.  :lol:

*restrins self from commenting on edifices made from elephant protuberances*

If you consider only the articles that deal with developed western contexts, you'll find a common theme: under conditions of inequality, impoverishment in particular sectors of society leads to increased rates of violent crime.
Not all poor are homogenously violent, criminally inclined, et cetera.  That is what Drasca has been trying, with apparent lack of success, to get across.

Within the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder are poor but proud, the sort who simply don't commit crime, and the poor, desparate, and irresponsible. 

Your apparent presumption that bias creates criminal activity strikes me as bizarre.  The missing behavioral checks, internal and external combined, on criminal or lawless behavior, are, to once again capture Draca's sound point, is not solely driven by economic status.

Poor but proud is how my Dad grew up.  He lost his father when he was 10.  Funny, he didn't turn into a criminal, even though he was a child of a non English speaking minority where he grew up.  His mother and older sister provided the moral discipline he needed to do well in school, to learn English, to work his butt off, and improve his lot in life.  He had chances to stray, I don't doubt, but he didn't.  Cultural and behavioral discipline, not license, and not a mind set seeking apology for being "disadvantaged."  He did have a mentor, a godfather, whose  presence was an accepted norm in a community that did not discard religion, but embraced it.  My dad became an Agnostic as a young man, and still is.  He spent no time excoriating or condemming Christians, or Jews, or Athiests for their beliefs -- unlike the trendy sneers one sees so often these days --  he just got on with his life and made the best of each situation he encountered. 

There was an old saying that a ghetto isn't a place, it is a state of mind.  Well, I'll up the ante: lawful behavior is a matter of attitude, as is unlawful and criminal behavior.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107561[/snapback][/right]

I grew up in whore houses, road houses, dance halls, had moon shiners and all manner of terrible folk as foster parents, done time on correctional boys farms, and somehow through all of that, even in my earliest memories and childhood thoughts, I held on to some sort of moral code of what I believed was right and wrong. My environment was terrible. I mean, lots of kids grew up in these conditions in the poor rural South. A lot of them grew up and became criminals. Same as the ghettos.

It's all about choice. How you grow up doesn't make you do anything. It's all in what you choose.

You always have freedom of choice, but you never have freedom from choice. You have to choose the right things, or else the choice will be made for you, and then the system takes over and wins.

Just like with Occhi's dad. He had chances to stray as Occhi said, but didn't. For whatever reason.

People turn to crime and such out of desperation because they lack the moral convictions to stick with long term plans to remove themselves from poverty.

[Chaerophon]

By hiring Paul Wolfowitz? Your "liberal" credentials just took a hit. laugh.gif

Hehe, the hiring of Wolfowitz aside, they seem to have made a conscious decision in the last few years to be a bit more contextually flexible and socially responsible than their bretheren (edit: uh oh, gender bias :D ) in the IMF.

[Occhidiangela]

It's all about choice. How you grow up doesn't make you do anything. It's all in what you choose.

How you are raised colors your decision making process. What you are taught can sometimes be improved upon, or undermined, but it tends to have a lasting influence on your decision making process.

You always have freedom of choice, but you never have freedom from choice.
Just like with Occhi's dad. He had chances to stray as Occhi said, but didn't. For whatever reason.

People turn to crime and such out of desperation because they lack the moral convictions to stick with long term plans to remove themselves from poverty.
[right][snapback]107566[/snapback][/right]

Some people do, some don't. The why has been puzzling sociolgists, and providing them with reasons to think and work, for a long time.

Occhi

[Doc]

How you are raised colors your decision making process.  What you are taught can sometimes be improved upon, or undermined, but it tends to have a lasting influence on your decision making process.
Some people do, some don't.  The why has been puzzling sociolgists, and providing them with reasons to think and work, for a long time.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107570[/snapback][/right]

I can agree with that. While most of the time I strive towards the greater good and always try to do the right thing... I think because of my upbringing I have very little problem doing the wrong things to get the right thing done. I have no qualms about stooping down and landing blows below the belt or fighting dirty. I aint afraid to get my hands dirty because I done did my time in the dirt and I know that it washes off.

I think about that some times. What makes people born in to good situations go bad, and what makes folk born in to bad situations turn out good. Are people intrinsically good or evil deep down inside and is there nothing that can be done to change that? And if so, are people who are intrinsically good down inside but do bad things to achieve good results or vise versa, people who do good things but bring about evil results just a product of both their nature and their nurture? Been thinking about that a lot lately. Go outside, sit on the bench, and watch the flowers growing. And just think when I get the chance.

[Chaerophon]

Not all poor are homogenously violent, criminally inclined, et cetera. That is what Drasca has been trying, with apparent lack of success, to get across.

Within the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder are poor but proud, the sort who simply don't commit crime, along with the poor, desparate, and irresponsible.

Occhi,

You are absolutely right, and I would never disagree with that point (although at times my language might have suggested otherwise. Of course, that does seem a fairly obvious point, and is one which I think my past posts have shown I would be likely to recognize). However, the children of those poor choosers don't have much of a chance. What Doc seems to have had in his favour was an upbringing that, at some point, inculcated him with values that served him well later in life. To what degree can one fault the child of delinquent or drug-addicted parents for her/his future despair? You certainly can't lay it all at their feet; we're talking about deep psychological issues here that cannot be corrected by throwing such folks under the bus.

One of the most eye-opening experiences of my life actually took place in an "Intro. to Canadian Politics" class about five years ago. I was taking the class in the summer, and on a "minor" campus in another town. The campus happened to sit right next to an indian reservation, and there were about seven members of the local Sto:lo tribe in my class. I probably learned more in those classes than anywhere since. They were all incredibly open about their pasts - I think that for some of them, it was therapeutic. Nearly all of them had been taken away from their parents at a young age, and placed in a residential school in the '60's. One of them was actually the last person to spend the night in a residential school in all of Canada.

What was amazing, was that, in spite of all of the pain that being ripped from their parents' arms had caused, this man's last night had been spent alone: he had broken back in, afraid to go home. They all expressed the same sentiment; despite the fact that some of them had been raped at the school and some had been beaten for speaking their native language (these were horrible places), what they feared even more was the hopelessness and despair that they would face on returning to society. None of their parents knew how to be parents: they, too, had been raised in the residential schools, as had their parents before them. Alcoholism, crime, and child abuse were often the result. This was a systemic cycle.

My intention is not to make any of the generalizations about "poor" people that you are suggesting. At some point, personal responsibility does have a role to play. Nonetheless, in the ghetto and similar places where similar (if not quite so extreme) systemic cycles do exist, and children are the victims (who then grow up to become parents...the cycle continues), it is hard to place all of the blame at the feet of generic "miscreants" who can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps. We're not talking about small obstacles here, and some people might need (and, as human beings, deserve) a hand up. They're not responsible for the situation into which they were born, any more than their parents were. Even if the adult population has already "made their bed", we owe it to the youth to try to improve their chances in the face of overwhelming odds.

Doing it the hard way may be noble; however, you lose a lot of potentially good people along the way if you rely on the ability of all people to have that kind of fortitude.

[Occhidiangela]

Chaer
Indian Vignette
[right][snapback]107578[/snapback][/right]

You just made part of the case, perhaps unintentionally, that the "ward of the state" approach aids and abets creation of a criminal sub class. What I don't understand from the story, due to my lack of specific context, is the cultural baseline of the Indian nation, or tribe, involved.

Occhi

[Doc]

Occhi,

You are absolutely right.  However, the children of those poor choosers don't have much of a chance.  What Doc seems to have had in his favour was an upbringing that, at some point, inculcated him with values that served him well later in life.  To what degree can one fault the child of delinquent or drug-addicted parents for her/his future despair?  You certainly can't lay it all at their feet; we're talking about deep psychological issues here that cannot be corrected by throwing such folks under the bus.
[right][snapback]107578[/snapback][/right]

It sure as hell wasn't people... It was books! Books did it. A love of reading and learning planted seeds in my mind on what things should be. There were people in books, good people, people that seemed totally alien to me because of the folks around me. Whores, card sharps, gamblers, muggerers, buggerers, and thieves. At some point, even as a kid, a little kid, I came to a realisation that this, what I saw all around me, was all I had to look forward to in life if I chose to live that way. I dunno about you folks, but this was a pretty profound thought for a child, at least in my mind. I don't think I was even a teen yet. I realised that if I lived like those people lived, that I was going to grow up and be just like them. Maybe a pimp. A sell drugs perhaps. A thief. A gambler. A crook that does a little bit of everything, some petty thug. And that the best that I could hope for should I live to a decent age was to "go honest" and own my own place, my own little roadhouse out in the stix, where I could get me a cut from all the people that "did business" there. Yeah, I was a kid when I realised this. I realised that if I continued to live in the state foster homes and correctional farms that I was never going to have a chance at all. That way of life would become to ingrained in me, and I would never be able to escape. I changed when I had those realisations. I became an adult in my thinking. I mean, it was an actual overnight sort of change. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING became a calculated move to get my sorry ass out of that situation. I wanted "out" more than I wanted anything else in my whole life, up to that point. I didn't have any shining examples of worthwhile human beings around me at the time as role models to show me the way. But I had books. Hell, I'd get a strapping because I'd have my nose in some book rather than be out some place in the hot sun busting my balls working. They damn sure didn't want me reading and educating my self to escape the system... I figured that out on my own. Didn't want me getting no uppity ideas about where my place in life was. I'd get caught with books in some of those places and I would get the lash for slacking off. I was told flat out that I didn't need to be reading no books, because the only thing I would ever be good for in my life was picking tobacco and fruit. Or whatever. And I knew that if I allowed this choice to be made for me, that would be all I was good for as far as honest work goes... And that kind of honest work don't pay much. I could clearly see which way the winds was a blowing, and I didn't like where those choices would take me.

Books and reading were my only source of hope, inspiration, and they served as both a mentor and a moral compass for me. It made all of the difference in my life. It was my way out. I did all of the work... But it was books that showed me which way to go.

Otherwise, hell, I know how close I came to slipping up and ruining my own life as a young adult. I'd likely be one of those people in prison right now. Or maybe death row. A lifetime criminal, simply because I chose to stay ignorant and not know no better.

[Chaerophon]

You just made part of the case, perhaps unintentionally, that the "ward of the state" approach aids and abets creation of a criminal sub class.  What I don't understand from the story, due to my lack of specific context, is the cultural baseline of the Indian nation, or tribe, involved. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]107586[/snapback][/right]

I'm not sure that I see the relationship. The natives were forcibly taken from their parents in order to fulfill an assimilationist ideal. I'm talking about certain kinds of affirmative action and education programs, welfare benefits, etc. The state would not be "raising children".

One of the "Big Lies" that I like to talk about is the dramatic ways in which isolated anecdotal evidence is used to proliferate the idea that social welfare "creates" massive amounts of welfare bums. The fact is, the impact of "abusers" on society is far less than the "think tank perception" tells us. What it does is give those with the initiative the opportunity to excape their circumstances through hard work. If there is some inefficiency in the system, I personally think that it is worth it.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not sure that I see the relationship.  The natives were forcibly taken from their parents in order to fulfill an assimilationist ideal. 

That is a first step in making someone a ward of the state: replacing the parent with a state organ, in this case apparently schools. This appears -- the details are not in my kit bag so I could have this horribly wrong -- to be a typically "progressive" style gambit inspired by the standard meddler's rationalizations. Do you have a link that explains the program? (If I understand your correctly, the program is now a piece of history. )

I'm talking about certain kinds of affirmative action and education programs, welfare benefits, etc.  The state would not be "raising children".

The fine line between interference and assistance? The state has never raised children, but it has, through various Foster and Orphan administration programs, taken on guardianship, wardship, to one degree or another. Strangely in my country, the adoption process -- a process that removes the State from a guardianship role -- is hamstrung by a horde of do government and other do-gooders who bog down the pathway for childless couples to adopt children.

One of the "Big Lies" that I like to talk about is the dramatic ways in which isolated anecdotal evidence is used to proliferate the idea that social welfare "creates" massive amounts of welfare bums.  The fact is, the impact of "abusers" on society is far less than the "think tank perception" tells us.  What it does is give those with the initiative the opportunity to excape their circumstances through hard work.  If there is some inefficiency in the system, I personally think that it is worth it.

[right][snapback]107589[/snapback][/right]
Isolated anecdotes? Interesting generalization.

Dependency is the core issue, and the institutionalization of the hand out rather than the hand up, the latter of which Conservatives down here find a suitable investment in our future. The Dole has an unsavory reputation when matched against the core cultural work ethic.

Put in a different light: why are some cities packed with unemployed folks when there is work along the border in the agricultural business? What mindset necessitates an urban imperative as the source of solutions? Why must the migration to the cities be a one way flow?

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

Occhi, the residential schools were nothing short of an abomination, intended as a solution to the "indian problem". Their goal was assimilationist, to wipe out traces of native culture and "Anglicize".

A pair of short summaries, the Canadian government's response, and a CBC documentary :) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_schools
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/serv...esource&lang=En
From the Government of Canada
From the CBC

[Chaerophon]

Isolated anecdotes? Interesting generalization.

Poor choice of words. I didn't intend to convey that there aren't many cases of abuse; rather, I wanted to note that, as isolated anecdotes, particular cases of abuse can quite easily be used to incite public outrage in lieu of a more moderate and considered response in light of consideration of the system and its effects as a whole.