Re: Crime and punishment (was I'm Depressed)

[Guest guest]

" Everything is being done to coddle the worst and most beastial

among us and the rest of us are made to feel bad about " judging " them.

This all really needs to change. "

I agree totally. Funny, one of my problems in accepting a diagnosis

of Aspergers is that I am afraid that people would think I was looking

for an excuse, which is not the case. But some google searches

revealed that it's a common thougth among NT's, and that the lead

singer of a band called the Vines got into some trouble and was

diagnosed with Aspergers, and let off the hook. NO NO NO NO NO.

We need to take responsibility for our actions, not using Aspergers as

an excuse. ( I don't know the full Vines story, so forgive me if I got

him wrong.)

> Tom,

>

> It is frustrating that so much stupidity goes on in the world. This

cussing

> thing is a prime example. I mean, what rational adult would think

this is a

> good idea? What those little brats need is a good caning. I know

I'll catch

> flak for that but its true. From all that I have seen, English kids

are totally

> spoiled. They know adults can't so much as look at them cross-eyed,

because

> if they do, the kids can report them for some kind of cruelty and

the adult

> will end up in jail. I read a story about an old man who's house

was routinely

> vandalized by kids going to school. He yelled at them one day and

the police

> came and arrested him. When he got home, the kids had broken into

his house

> and destroyed everything. The man killed himself and nothing ever

happened to

> the kids. Personally, I'd have waited for the kids to come by the

next day

> and killed some of them before doing myself in.

>

> What is so bad about all these news stories and the many more I

don't post

> is that the vermin are running the show. Everything is being done to

coddle the

> worst and most beastial among us and the rest of us are made to

feel bad

> about " judging " them. This all really needs to change.

>

>

> I would modify the legal system. No more sealing juvenile record:

anything

> a person does will be on their record for all to see for their

entire lives.

> Currently, juvenile records are sealed when the person turns 18.

They know

> this and take full advantage of it. This only creates a contempt for

law in the

> young. Also, all of a criminal's record would automatically be

entered into

> evidence in court proceedings. This is also rarely allowed because

it would

> " predjudice " the jury. Admitting the record would allow juries to

see just

> what kind of person they were dealing with. Currently there are

people with rap

> sheets literally feet long out on the street because juries can't be

told

> about their records. Accounts of juries being horrified at the

people they let

> go or sentenced lightly are legion. Of course, they only found out

about the

> person after the trial was over. These changed would put the worst

people in

> jail where they belong and would force the young to consider their

actions.

>

>

> Next, I would modify the current prisons. Prison today isn't much of a

> threat because they get good food, a place to sleep, they can sue

the guards and

> they can learn better how to commit crime from other inmates. I

could put one

> person to a cell and they would be locked in the whole of their

sentence. They

> would only get out if they had a medical emergency. Food would be

brought to

> them, as would mail and the occasional book or magazine from the

library,

> except for legal books, those would be forbidden (currently they

aren't and

> access to them allows the inmates to cause a lot of trouble). They

could have a

> small TV in their cell, but no cable, unless their family paid for

it at

> double the normal rate or higher. Movies would be pay-per-view at

several times

> the regular rate. There would be no internet access period.

>

> When there was perhaps 6 months left on their term, they would be

sent to a

> halfway house sort of affair where they would be retrained to

function in

> society. If they can't hack it, run away or cause trouble, they go

back to their

> cell.

>

> This would be for felony offenders and those who get life sentences or

> otherwise very long ones. Such a system would keep them away from

society, which

> is really the point, but also keep the animals away from each other.

Rape is a

> certainty in prison and even inmates, with the possible exception of

sex

> offenders, don't deserve that. This is all the more so given the

high rates of

> HIV/AIDS in the prisons already. They would also be prevented from

working out

> with weights and getting huge and strong and better able to commit

crime when

> they get out.

>

> Lower level offenders would serve the others. These lower level

offenders

> would live in buildings around the lockdown section. They would all

have locator

> bands on their legs so their whereabouts and who they are with

could be

> tracked at all times. This system is already being used and is

working well.

> These inmates would rotate on a random schedule through the

lockdown section

> delivery food and mail, etc. to the cells. This way they would get

the chance to

> see what awaits them if they don't shape up.

>

> This return to the old ways would shake up the current generation that

> doesn't fear punishment. We are seeing so many crimes for this very

reason: they

> have no fear at all of being punished. It would keep the beast away

from decent

> people like they should be, rather than putting the wolves amongst

the sheep

> as the currrent system does.

>

>

[Guest guest]

" Everything is being done to coddle the worst and most beastial

among us and the rest of us are made to feel bad about " judging " them.

This all really needs to change. "

I agree totally. Funny, one of my problems in accepting a diagnosis

of Aspergers is that I am afraid that people would think I was looking

for an excuse, which is not the case. But some google searches

revealed that it's a common thougth among NT's, and that the lead

singer of a band called the Vines got into some trouble and was

diagnosed with Aspergers, and let off the hook. NO NO NO NO NO.

We need to take responsibility for our actions, not using Aspergers as

an excuse. ( I don't know the full Vines story, so forgive me if I got

him wrong.)

> Tom,

>

> It is frustrating that so much stupidity goes on in the world. This

cussing

> thing is a prime example. I mean, what rational adult would think

this is a

> good idea? What those little brats need is a good caning. I know

I'll catch

> flak for that but its true. From all that I have seen, English kids

are totally

> spoiled. They know adults can't so much as look at them cross-eyed,

because

> if they do, the kids can report them for some kind of cruelty and

the adult

> will end up in jail. I read a story about an old man who's house

was routinely

> vandalized by kids going to school. He yelled at them one day and

the police

> came and arrested him. When he got home, the kids had broken into

his house

> and destroyed everything. The man killed himself and nothing ever

happened to

> the kids. Personally, I'd have waited for the kids to come by the

next day

> and killed some of them before doing myself in.

>

> What is so bad about all these news stories and the many more I

don't post

> is that the vermin are running the show. Everything is being done to

coddle the

> worst and most beastial among us and the rest of us are made to

feel bad

> about " judging " them. This all really needs to change.

>

>

> I would modify the legal system. No more sealing juvenile record:

anything

> a person does will be on their record for all to see for their

entire lives.

> Currently, juvenile records are sealed when the person turns 18.

They know

> this and take full advantage of it. This only creates a contempt for

law in the

> young. Also, all of a criminal's record would automatically be

entered into

> evidence in court proceedings. This is also rarely allowed because

it would

> " predjudice " the jury. Admitting the record would allow juries to

see just

> what kind of person they were dealing with. Currently there are

people with rap

> sheets literally feet long out on the street because juries can't be

told

> about their records. Accounts of juries being horrified at the

people they let

> go or sentenced lightly are legion. Of course, they only found out

about the

> person after the trial was over. These changed would put the worst

people in

> jail where they belong and would force the young to consider their

actions.

>

>

> Next, I would modify the current prisons. Prison today isn't much of a

> threat because they get good food, a place to sleep, they can sue

the guards and

> they can learn better how to commit crime from other inmates. I

could put one

> person to a cell and they would be locked in the whole of their

sentence. They

> would only get out if they had a medical emergency. Food would be

brought to

> them, as would mail and the occasional book or magazine from the

library,

> except for legal books, those would be forbidden (currently they

aren't and

> access to them allows the inmates to cause a lot of trouble). They

could have a

> small TV in their cell, but no cable, unless their family paid for

it at

> double the normal rate or higher. Movies would be pay-per-view at

several times

> the regular rate. There would be no internet access period.

>

> When there was perhaps 6 months left on their term, they would be

sent to a

> halfway house sort of affair where they would be retrained to

function in

> society. If they can't hack it, run away or cause trouble, they go

back to their

> cell.

>

> This would be for felony offenders and those who get life sentences or

> otherwise very long ones. Such a system would keep them away from

society, which

> is really the point, but also keep the animals away from each other.

Rape is a

> certainty in prison and even inmates, with the possible exception of

sex

> offenders, don't deserve that. This is all the more so given the

high rates of

> HIV/AIDS in the prisons already. They would also be prevented from

working out

> with weights and getting huge and strong and better able to commit

crime when

> they get out.

>

> Lower level offenders would serve the others. These lower level

offenders

> would live in buildings around the lockdown section. They would all

have locator

> bands on their legs so their whereabouts and who they are with

could be

> tracked at all times. This system is already being used and is

working well.

> These inmates would rotate on a random schedule through the

lockdown section

> delivery food and mail, etc. to the cells. This way they would get

the chance to

> see what awaits them if they don't shape up.

>

> This return to the old ways would shake up the current generation that

> doesn't fear punishment. We are seeing so many crimes for this very

reason: they

> have no fear at all of being punished. It would keep the beast away

from decent

> people like they should be, rather than putting the wolves amongst

the sheep

> as the currrent system does.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I just think crime is an innate part of the human condition. The part I am referring to exists in all animals and probably all forms of life. Now that I am thinking about it I can't think of the exact name. What I am talking about is called laziness (not exactly right but close enough).

All animals try to expend the least amount of energy to survive. This is a natural tendency and it makes sense. Criminals do this as well. They simply find it easier to steal, rob or kill rather than get a job and make an honest living.

Some of the oldest written records we have are criminal codes. The Code of Hammurabi listed many crimes, all of which are familiar. It also listed punishments, some of which were very harsh including death and dismemberment. The need for such harsh punishments likely means crime was widespread and common.

For a very long time and still in part of the world, highwaymen who prey on travellers and merchants were very common. Travelling bands of bandits would raid settlements to steal and kill. This as much as anything was why so many ancient cities had walls and were built on hills.

Prehistoric human bones often show signs of having died violently. It is theorized that as humans began to settle and farm, others decided it would be easier to make living by stealing from those who worked so hard on the land. They probably continued to live as hunter/gatherers most of the time, but raided to supplement themselves, and probably just for the thrill.

Now, as for considering background, I consider that a lot of hooey. Lots of people were poor and living in very hard times during the Great Depression, yet crime rates actually went down, even accounting for the organized crime wars brought on by Prohibition. Poverty is not a reason for crime, just and excuse.

What is more important to consider is the mindset of these people and the culture as it were. In the Great Depression, most people had honor and dignity enough to stear clear of crime. They sought honest work and toughed it out. This doens't exit as widely these days. Many people think they are owed everything, that work is for suckers, and laws are made to be broken.

For example: just this weekend, an 11 year old was charged with carjacking. Where would a kid that young get the idea to do such a thing? Obivously by growing up around people that do it and brag about it. Young kids are robbing, raping and murdering at increasing rates. I read an article in the early 1990's that quoted some "Old School Gangsters" who were criminals in the 1970's saying the new breed of criminals scared them. The new kids were scary because they didn't care about anyone, had no fear and would kill you for nothing. What could express it better?

So yes, background may have something to do with it, but it should not be considered in their favor. Rather, it is all the more reason to put them away from society. If they have have been so badly tainted and ruined by their upbringing, it is unlikley they can be changed and "saved". Therefore the most human thing to do is warehouse them away from society where they can do no harm and most of all can't reproduce and increase the problem.

I would agree that we could do without crime. However, there will always be people who cheat and try to take the easy road. This could be lessened by proper moral and ethical education. This has been forbidden in the Public Schools since the 1960's thanks to the ACLU. It is interesting to note that crime rates began rising about that time as well. I guess it must be hard to learn values if the teacher can't tell you that stealing from other students and beating them up is wrong and your "punishment" is not having to go to school.

Prisons are going to be with us for a long time. The sooner we go back to some of the old way of teaching ethics and decency and making prisons a fearful place, the better.

[Guest guest]

I can agree upon that the system today in many countries are not in

line with the crimes. Still we should take a to big steep backwards.

But we need to start working with values from the very beginning.

There is a lot of talk about that today, but most is about how the

kids and teens should be respected. It is not about they learnig to

show respect to elders as it was before.

To be able to forgive wrongs is important as is compassion but

somewhere a line must be drawn that tells those who keeps moving down

the wrong path and who just happens to like hurting others that

enough is enough.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/30/2005 10:18:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Kids have come to resent the fact that they have been placed in a position where they are in many cases more knowledgable than their parents but are still treated like kids.

Another factor is the media. If you look at most of the programs you see adults portrayed as bumbling fools. Kids shows are really bad about this. The worst of the lot is probably the Kids Next Door series where kids actively fight adults.

In older times kids stories and such had morals to them or served as warnings. These days they still do but they tend to be more of a negative than a positive. Adults are shown as idiots who only exist to get in the way of having fun and/or serve as an ATM.

I agree that we have become much too kidcentric and should switch back to more adult centered. They are called juvenile for a reason: they aren't developed people yet. Therefore, society should not cater to them.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/30/2005 9:17:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, nemomatti@... writes:

I can agree upon that the system today in many countries are not in line with the crimes. Still we should take a to big steep backwards. But we need to start working with values from the very beginning. There is a lot of talk about that today, but most is about how the kids and teens should be respected. It is not about they learnig to show respect to elders as it was before. To be able to forgive wrongs is important as is compassion but somewhere a line must be drawn that tells those who keeps moving down the wrong path and who just happens to like hurting others that enough is enough.

The problem is that kids these days think more of themselves than they merit. The schools pump them full of false self-esteem and little else. This was done because teaching them ethics and morals was outlawed in the 1960's, thanks to the ACLU. So, the establishment decided to go the self-esteem route on the premise that crime was committed because the people felt bad about themselves.

Well, turn out to be just the opposite. The kids feel so good about themselves that anything less than being bowed to is an insult and grounds for a beating to prove how good they are. This is a big reason why school violence has increased and why you so often here that someone was "disrespected".

People should be treated with courtesy, but respect has to be earned. I remember during his "great crisis" Bill Clinton demanded respect because he was President. Sorry, being elected doesn't qualify for respect. The office should be respected, which is mostly the onus of the office holder, but the person doesn't need to be respected. I didn't respect him and I don't really respect Bush either. Clinton was a crook and Bush has made some serious and avoidable mistakes and is neglecting serious domestic matters like border security. (Now folks, I just mentioned this because it first came to mind as a thing most people would be aware of. Do not turn this into a political war.)

I agree that forgiveness is a good thing. However, forgiveness is the province of the individual. This is why crime is handled by the state. The state does not fogive. The state serves to protect the citizens from the vermin by enforcing the social contract all who live in the state agree to live by by the virtue of their being citizens. Therefore, if a person wants to forgive the one who wrong them, fine, but the state still needs to try and punish the offender according to the law. If it does not, then the social contract becomes meaningless.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/30/2005 1:32:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I believe that everyone ought to be allowed their own values and belief systems without persecution from others...when they are in their own homes. When people circulate in a society that encompasses many different value systems, then there needs to be a baseline moral and ethical code that allows people to have a REASONABLE degree of freedom without any negative effects on others.

This is the social contract I mentioned in another post. You can believe just about anything you want in your own home, but where it affects society as a whole, it can come into conflict with the law of the land. There are unreasonable things you can do in your house, like manufacture drugs or bombs, molest children or plot murder, etc. Most anything else is ok.

The social contract is simply the laws that society has chosen for itself. I also see room for local variability. If you don't like a certain law in a place but most other people do, move. It is unreasonable to wage a court battle to force the will of a few on the many, yet this happens daily. It would be better for the few to move to where they would be the many. Gay marriage is a good example. Rather than force this on the whole nation, allow certain location like San Francisco allow it. That way the people who believed in that could move there, or other localities, and not force it on a nation as whole that largely opposes it. There would have to a be line however, or there could be places that legalized hard drugs, pedophelia and so on.

As for the ACLU, they didn't have such high minded goals at heart. Most of the founders were members of the American Communist Party and their goal was the elimination of religion in public life. Even today mots of their suits are against public practice of religion. They succeeded in the schools, they are religious monuments removed or covered and they hare having prayers and other observances banned from public places. Of course they are focussing on Christianity. Other religions get something of support since they have helped Jews, Muslims and even Witches sue for religious discrimination.

I have no respect for the ACLU and honestly consider them a threat to the nation.

[Guest guest]

Here's a good example of all we have been talking about. I'm willing to bet my that lots of these people stayed just so they could loot once the storm passed.

Looting Begins in New OrleansAug 30 12:47 PM US/Eastern

By ALLEN G. BREEDAssociated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS

With much of the city emptied by Hurricane Katrina, some opportunists took advantage of the situation by looting stores. At a Walgreen's drug store in the French Quarter, people were running out with grocery baskets and coolers full of soft drinks, chips and diapers. When police finally showed up, a young boy stood in the door screaming, "86! 86!" _ the radio code for police _ and the crowd scattered. Bollinger, a tourist from Philadelphia, stood outside and snapped pictures in amazement. "It's downtown Baghdad," the housewife said. "It's insane. I've wanted to come here for 10 years. I thought this was a sophisticated city. I guess not." Around the corner on Canal Street, the main thoroughfare in the central business district, people sloshed headlong through hip-deep water as looters ripped open the steel gates on the front of several clothing and jewelry stores. One man, who had about 10 pairs of jeans draped over his left arm, was asked if he was salvaging things from his store. "No," the man shouted, "that's EVERYBODY'S store." Looters filled industrial-sized garbage cans with clothing and jewelry and floated them down the street on bits of plywood and insulation as National Guard lumbered by. Mike lin stood on the trolley tracks and watched the spectacle unfold. "To be honest with you, people who are oppressed all their lives, man, it's an opportunity to get back at society," he said.

[Guest guest]

Ceylin2004,

There is a reason for this. Go back 150 years and you would have

been in a society that was on the cusp of the industrial revolution,

but for most centuries prior to that life stayed mostly the same.

And so if you were born a child, you repsected your elders because

they had a huge amount of wisdom to impart to the young ones about

survivial, and you were less likely to be the recipient of such

wisdom if you were rude or disrespectful.

As society made advances, it was the adults who made them and

understood them, and so kids were still compelled to be respectful

to adults and learn all they could.

But about the middle of the last century (about the 1950s)

technology began to advance to the point where A) Some kids couldn't

keep up with it, and Some kids began thinking of making up their

own technology.

Now we have a world where many adults cannot program VCRs, take

seemingly forever to learn computers, are unfamiliar with the latest

and upcoming technical advances, etc.

And so many kids have now developed a contempt for adults, both

because they have MORE knowledge than the adults who are supposed to

be mentoring them, and because they are incapable of learning OTHER

types of knowledge that their parents and past generations devised

for them to learn.

Kids have come to resent the fact that they have been placed in a

position where they are in many cases more knowledgable than their

parents but are still treated like kids.

I believe society has become too complex. A major solution to this

problem would be to eliminate that which is unnecessary to our

survival from our lives. How many video games, cars, bikes, boats,

etc. does anyone REALLY need?

If people didn't have to work so hard to make it in the world, and

didn't have to learn so much to survive, people could focus more on

such things as togetherness with their families and their religions

or other principled pasttimes.

Then adults would be " mentors " rather than just leaders, and kids

would be more inclined to follow adults, learn from them, and

respect them.

Tom

It is not about they learnig to show respect to elders as it was

before.

[Guest guest]

,

To take my whining one step deeper, I wonder why it is that we must

even have crime and criminal misbehavior in the first place.

Children make mistakes, for which they should be punished. But then

there are lines that are crossed too, and that's when they become

juvenile delinquents.

Why?

There is no reason that I can see for this to happen.

There are loads of studies out there that will show links between

many things and juvenile delinquency. I understand that. And while

linkage are suggestive of " causes " the fact is, it takes a conscious

and willful decision in the majority of cases for someone to commit

a crime.

Unless someone is suffering from a disorder that causes them to do

things compulsively, such as shoplift, or flash someone, etc., by

far and away, MOST crimes are either premeditated, or they can be

stopped simply by making the conscious choice not to do them.

I suppose I would be a very lousy judge because I would NOT be able

to take into consideration a person's upbringing or other factors

when considering sentences.

I just feel that what I witness today is a greater propensity toward

delinquency, both juvenile and adult, and I DON'T belive it's due to

increased reporting by the media. I see it on the street much more

than I ever did when i was little.

Society seems to be getting worse, and my travels across the country

seem to confrim this observation. It's the same everywhere.

Tom

Tom,

It is frustrating that so much stupidity goes on in the world. This

cussing thing is a prime example. I mean, what rational adult would

think this is a good idea? What those little brats need is a good

caning. I know I'll catch flak for that but its true. From all that

I have seen, English kids are totally spoiled. They know adults

can't so much as look at them cross-eyed, because if they do, the

kids can report them for some kind of cruelty and the adult will end

up in jail. I read a story about an old man who's house was

routinely vandalized by kids going to school. He yelled at them one

day and the police came and arrested him. When he got home, the kids

had broken into his house and destroyed everything. The man killed

himself and nothing ever happened to the kids. Personally, I'd have

waited for the kids to come by the next day and killed some of them

before doing myself in.

What is so bad about all these news stories and the many more I

don't post is that the vermin are running the show. Everything is

being done to coddle the worst and most beastial among us and the

rest of us are made to feel bad about " judging " them. This all

really needs to change.

I would modify the legal system. No more sealing juvenile record:

anything a person does will be on their record for all to see for

their entire lives. Currently, juvenile records are sealed when the

person turns 18. They know this and take full advantage of it. This

only creates a contempt for law in the young. Also, all of a

criminal's record would automatically be entered into evidence in

court proceedings. This is also rarely allowed because it

would " predjudice " the jury. Admitting the record would allow juries

to see just what kind of person they were dealing with. Currently

there are people with rap sheets literally feet long out on the

street because juries can't be told about their records. Accounts of

juries being horrified at the people they let go or sentenced

lightly are legion. Of course, they only found out about the person

after the trial was over. These changed would put the worst people

in jail where they belong and would force the young to consider

their actions.

Next, I would modify the current prisons. Prison today isn't much of

a threat because they get good food, a place to sleep, they can sue

the guards and they can learn better how to commit crime from other

inmates. I could put one person to a cell and they would be locked

in the whole of their sentence. They would only get out if they had

a medical emergency. Food would be brought to them, as would mail

and the occasional book or magazine from the library, except for

legal books, those would be forbidden (currently they aren't and

access to them allows the inmates to cause a lot of trouble). They

could have a small TV in their cell, but no cable, unless their

family paid for it at double the normal rate or higher. Movies would

be pay-per-view at several times the regular rate. There would be no

internet access period.

When there was perhaps 6 months left on their term, they would be

sent to a halfway house sort of affair where they would be retrained

to function in society. If they can't hack it, run away or cause

trouble, they go back to their cell.

This would be for felony offenders and those who get life sentences

or otherwise very long ones. Such a system would keep them away from

society, which is really the point, but also keep the animals away

from each other. Rape is a certainty in prison and even inmates,

with the possible exception of sex offenders, don't deserve that.

This is all the more so given the high rates of HIV/AIDS in the

prisons already. They would also be prevented from working out with

weights and getting huge and strong and better able to commit crime

when they get out.

Lower level offenders would serve the others. These lower level

offenders would live in buildings around the lockdown section. They

would all have locator bands on their legs so their whereabouts and

who they are with could be tracked at all times. This system is

already being used and is working well. These inmates would rotate

on a random schedule through the lockdown section delivery food and

mail, etc. to the cells. This way they would get the chance to see

what awaits them if they don't shape up.

This return to the old ways would shake up the current generation

that doesn't fear punishment. We are seeing so many crimes for this

very reason: they have no fear at all of being punished. It would

keep the beast away from decent people like they should be, rather

than putting the wolves amongst the sheep as the currrent system

does.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I agree with you. What we are seeing is the difference between humans and animals. The humans are looking out for each other in a positive way while the animals are looting. The humans should be working against the animals and if that means shooting a few of them to warn off the rest, then so be it.

No, the animals don't have any values. Like an animal, they are totally absorbed by themselves and their own needs and wants. Right now they are saying that looting is bad that the police don't have anywhere to put them. Word of this has gotten around and the looting is getting worse because they know they can't be punished. This is why I say the police should shoot some of them and hang them from lamp posts as a warning to the others. That is the only thing they will understand, seeing a corpse and knowing that is what they face if they try to loot will give them pause.

Around here after Isabell things were bad for a few weeks. This neighborhood was heavily hit but there was no crime or looting. I patrolled the block a few times carrying my shotgun, but that proved unnecessary. Then again, maybe the nogoods a few blocks over realized heard and thought we were all aremed and willing to fight looters so they kept away. I don't know if that will hold next time around though, given that we've had more prowlers and such recently.

We've got decent people around here and lots of us chipped in to help each other. Our car was damaged but neighbors offered us rides to the grocery or whereever we needed to go, until we got a rental that is. Even so, if they were going out, they would offer to pick things up for us. We did the same. If we were going out, I'd ask some of the neighbors if they needed anything.

People who had generators would share power with others. Some people even chipped in to buy one and they would rotate it every hour or so so that the refridgerators could be kept cold. Others would let neighbors keep a few things in their fridge and come by to cook a meal or two per day or get a hot shower. Some of the neighbors actually had a big cookout to eat all the food that otherwise would have gone bad in the freezer.

Those people down there have it bad. This was a nasty storm but one that had been warned about for some time. It is unfortunate that sprawl was allowed to continue in such vulnerable areas, but then we were also lulled by the down end of the hurricane cycle. Now that it is picking up, we are probably going to see a lot more of this.

New Orleans appearantly had not been keeping up its levies like it should have been. They were rated for a category 3 storm, but because of poor maintenance, they had been sinking, just like the rest of the city. (What's happening is the land wants to be a swamp but people keep draining it. This is drying out the soil which is causing it to sink. The more it sinks the more water they have to pump out on a daily basis, which only makes the problem worse.)

In my opinion, they should have limited development there to tourism and some business. Those new buildings could have been concentrated and built to withstand a category 5. They should also have been raised on stilts and had walkways connecting them all about 30 or 40 feet up. This would allow the area to keep functioning even if the ground level was flooded. Also, raised generator buildings would be part of the plan to supply emergency power. Power from outside would be in buried lines designed to survive in wet conditions, much like the transoceanic communication cables.

All new housing would have to be built along the same line. Raised, very sound buildings with high passages between them. Still it would be expected that most people would evacuate or be ordered out, but a few could remain. Because of the interconnected nature of the buildings, it would be possible to land on the roof of one to get people out or deliver supplies to the watchmen.

As for all the welfare people there, they should have been shipped out. They were only a liability anyway and now they are looting. They are saying it will be months before services are restored, so you can expect there will be much worse to come. Even in the few days we were without services, the welfare people on the other side of town were near to rioting when things weren't back to normal the day after the storm. I expect things to get really nasty down there and where ever those people are eventually shipped to. Without them around and better planning like I have described, the levees could have contained a much smaller area and thus been higher and better maintained. This in turn would have meant less damage to the city.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I agree with you. What we are seeing is the difference between humans and animals. The humans are looking out for each other in a positive way while the animals are looting. The humans should be working against the animals and if that means shooting a few of them to warn off the rest, then so be it.

No, the animals don't have any values. Like an animal, they are totally absorbed by themselves and their own needs and wants. Right now they are saying that looting is bad that the police don't have anywhere to put them. Word of this has gotten around and the looting is getting worse because they know they can't be punished. This is why I say the police should shoot some of them and hang them from lamp posts as a warning to the others. That is the only thing they will understand, seeing a corpse and knowing that is what they face if they try to loot will give them pause.

Around here after Isabell things were bad for a few weeks. This neighborhood was heavily hit but there was no crime or looting. I patrolled the block a few times carrying my shotgun, but that proved unnecessary. Then again, maybe the nogoods a few blocks over realized heard and thought we were all aremed and willing to fight looters so they kept away. I don't know if that will hold next time around though, given that we've had more prowlers and such recently.

We've got decent people around here and lots of us chipped in to help each other. Our car was damaged but neighbors offered us rides to the grocery or whereever we needed to go, until we got a rental that is. Even so, if they were going out, they would offer to pick things up for us. We did the same. If we were going out, I'd ask some of the neighbors if they needed anything.

People who had generators would share power with others. Some people even chipped in to buy one and they would rotate it every hour or so so that the refridgerators could be kept cold. Others would let neighbors keep a few things in their fridge and come by to cook a meal or two per day or get a hot shower. Some of the neighbors actually had a big cookout to eat all the food that otherwise would have gone bad in the freezer.

Those people down there have it bad. This was a nasty storm but one that had been warned about for some time. It is unfortunate that sprawl was allowed to continue in such vulnerable areas, but then we were also lulled by the down end of the hurricane cycle. Now that it is picking up, we are probably going to see a lot more of this.

New Orleans appearantly had not been keeping up its levies like it should have been. They were rated for a category 3 storm, but because of poor maintenance, they had been sinking, just like the rest of the city. (What's happening is the land wants to be a swamp but people keep draining it. This is drying out the soil which is causing it to sink. The more it sinks the more water they have to pump out on a daily basis, which only makes the problem worse.)

In my opinion, they should have limited development there to tourism and some business. Those new buildings could have been concentrated and built to withstand a category 5. They should also have been raised on stilts and had walkways connecting them all about 30 or 40 feet up. This would allow the area to keep functioning even if the ground level was flooded. Also, raised generator buildings would be part of the plan to supply emergency power. Power from outside would be in buried lines designed to survive in wet conditions, much like the transoceanic communication cables.

All new housing would have to be built along the same line. Raised, very sound buildings with high passages between them. Still it would be expected that most people would evacuate or be ordered out, but a few could remain. Because of the interconnected nature of the buildings, it would be possible to land on the roof of one to get people out or deliver supplies to the watchmen.

As for all the welfare people there, they should have been shipped out. They were only a liability anyway and now they are looting. They are saying it will be months before services are restored, so you can expect there will be much worse to come. Even in the few days we were without services, the welfare people on the other side of town were near to rioting when things weren't back to normal the day after the storm. I expect things to get really nasty down there and where ever those people are eventually shipped to. Without them around and better planning like I have described, the levees could have contained a much smaller area and thus been higher and better maintained. This in turn would have meant less damage to the city.

[Guest guest]

,

I think the main fault with the ACLU was that its founders operated

on the assumption that everyone had morals and values that would be

above indecent behavior and so these morals and values should be

expressed freely without people infringing on each other's rights to

have them.

I believe that everyone ought to be allowed their own values and

belief systems without persecution from others...when they are in

their own homes. When people circulate in a society that encompasses

many different value systems, then there needs to be a baseline

moral and ethical code that allows people to have a REASONABLE

degree of freedom without any negative effects on others.

The ACLU, while a good idea in principle, doesn't work in practice,

in my opinion.

Tom

I would agree that we could do without crime. However, there will

always be people who cheat and try to take the easy road. This could

be lessened by proper moral and ethical education. This has been

forbidden in the Public Schools since the 1960's thanks to the ACLU.

It is interesting to note that crime rates began rising about that

time as well. I guess it must be hard to learn values if the teacher

can't tell you that stealing from other students and beating them up

is wrong and your " punishment " is not having to go to school.

[Guest guest]

,

And this dtory begs the question:

Why must some people revert to the lowest of the low during a crisis?

Look at this quote:

" Mike lin stood on the trolley tracks and watched the spectacle

unfold.

" 'To be honest with you, people who are oppressed all their lives,

man, it's an opportunity to get back at society,' he said. "

I see it as quite the opposite. In a time of such carnage and

destruction, it's a time for anyone and everyone to come out of

themselves, stop being " inner-directed " and become " other directed. "

In other words, it's a time to help others in a time of need.

People should be doing things like joining the Red Cross, or at the

very least, taking pictures of the looters and giving them to the

police so that they may later prosecute. And if they don't want to

get involved, then they should just stay inside and do nothing, not

watch in amusement while people commit crimes. Watching people

commit crimes without narcing on them is the next best thing to

aiding and abbettiing. It's like giving tacit approval.

I will state up front that I have had and always will have a lot of

problems with the society and way of living that I was born to.

Rainbow's lifestyle is more toward my ideal. But you're not going to

see me " getting back at society " because I often feel oppressed by

it.

What sort of dignity and/or moral and value systems do these looters

have?

Any at all?

Tom

Here's a good example of all we have been talking about. I'm willing

to bet my that lots of these people stayed just so they could loot

once the storm passed.

Looting Begins in New Orleans

Aug 30 12:47 PM US/Eastern

By ALLEN G. BREED

Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS

With much of the city emptied by Hurricane Katrina, some

opportunists took advantage of the situation by looting stores.

At a Walgreen's drug store in the French Quarter, people were

running out with grocery baskets and coolers full of soft drinks,

chips and diapers.

When police finally showed up, a young boy stood in the door

screaming, " 86! 86! " _ the radio code for police _ and the crowd

scattered.

Bollinger, a tourist from Philadelphia, stood outside and

snapped pictures in amazement.

" It's downtown Baghdad, " the housewife said. " It's insane. I've

wanted to come here for 10 years. I thought this was a sophisticated

city. I guess not. "

Around the corner on Canal Street, the main thoroughfare in the

central business district, people sloshed headlong through hip-deep

water as looters ripped open the steel gates on the front of several

clothing and jewelry stores.

One man, who had about 10 pairs of jeans draped over his left arm,

was asked if he was salvaging things from his store.

" No, " the man shouted, " that's EVERYBODY'S store. "

Looters filled industrial-sized garbage cans with clothing and

jewelry and floated them down the street on bits of plywood and

insulation as National Guard lumbered by.

Mike lin stood on the trolley tracks and watched the spectacle

unfold.

" To be honest with you, people who are oppressed all their lives,

man, it's an opportunity to get back at society, " he said.

[Guest guest]

Um,

I was with you up until this point.

USus better than animals is that we don't treat people this way,

even if the people in question behave like...welll...animals.

When something bad happens to me, I will admit that my mind DOES

have thoughts of revenge, but I would never act upon those thoughts

and do feel sorry for having them.

What I WILL say though is that the looting should have been

anticpated and prepared for. Perhaps helicopters could have been

standing by so that when the sky cleared they could airlift National

Guard troops in to combat looting.

The only way I could get behind your idea is if they'd have declared

Martial Law upon the start of the looting with a statement saying

that looters would be shot on sight. At least that way everything

would be fair.

My problem is I tend to value human life so much that I question

whether or not its moral to kill someone because they've stolen an

object from someone else. It ISN'T fair that someone else loses

belongings due to someone's greed, but I cannot -at this moment-

think of an object that is worth a man's or woman's life.

Tom

Tom,

This is why I say the police should shoot some of them and hang them

from lamp posts as a warning to the others. That is the only thing

they will understand, seeing a corpse and knowing that is what they

face if they try to loot will give them pause.

>

[Guest guest]

Um,

I was with you up until this point.

USus better than animals is that we don't treat people this way,

even if the people in question behave like...welll...animals.

When something bad happens to me, I will admit that my mind DOES

have thoughts of revenge, but I would never act upon those thoughts

and do feel sorry for having them.

What I WILL say though is that the looting should have been

anticpated and prepared for. Perhaps helicopters could have been

standing by so that when the sky cleared they could airlift National

Guard troops in to combat looting.

The only way I could get behind your idea is if they'd have declared

Martial Law upon the start of the looting with a statement saying

that looters would be shot on sight. At least that way everything

would be fair.

My problem is I tend to value human life so much that I question

whether or not its moral to kill someone because they've stolen an

object from someone else. It ISN'T fair that someone else loses

belongings due to someone's greed, but I cannot -at this moment-

think of an object that is worth a man's or woman's life.

Tom

Tom,

This is why I say the police should shoot some of them and hang them

from lamp posts as a warning to the others. That is the only thing

they will understand, seeing a corpse and knowing that is what they

face if they try to loot will give them pause.

>

[Guest guest]

>Tom: "....... they could airlift National Guard troops in to combat looting."If the National Guard wasn't overseas busy killing those of another religion for the greed of arrogant SUV drivers!   Rainbow

[Guest guest]

>Tom: "....... they could airlift National Guard troops in to combat looting."If the National Guard wasn't overseas busy killing those of another religion for the greed of arrogant SUV drivers!   Rainbow

[Guest guest]

VISIGOTH@... wrote:

> Tom,

>

> I agree with you. What we are seeing is the difference between humans

> and animals. The humans are looking out for each other in a positive

> way while the animals are looting. The humans should be working

> against the animals and if that means shooting a few of them to warn

> off the rest, then so be it.

>

> No, the animals don't have any values. Like an animal, they are

> totally absorbed by themselves and their own needs and wants.

>

Tom,

you are insulting animals here. Seriously, people give animals way too

little credit. I live with animals, and they are usually good enough at

looking out for each other. Even across species limits.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

> There is a lot of talk about that today, but most is about how the

> kids and teens should be respected.

Everyone should be respected.

> It is not about they learnig to show respect to elders as it was

> before.

Respect needs to be earned, not demanded.

Lizzie

http://pg.photos./ph/chain3turn/my_photos

http://www.livejournal.com/users/samplerlady/

http://literarylady.blogspot.com/

" To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. "

ph Chilton Pierce

[Guest guest]

> Children make mistakes, for which they should be punished.

Children make mistakes and they should be taught not to do it again.

As children are people and don't always learn the lesson the first

time, they need to be taught again and again.

Lizzie

http://pg.photos./ph/chain3turn/my_photos

http://www.livejournal.com/users/samplerlady/

http://literarylady.blogspot.com/

" To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. "

ph Chilton Pierce

[Guest guest]

> For example: just this weekend, an 11 year old was

> charged with carjacking. Where would a kid that

> young get the idea to do such a thing?

TV.

Lizzie

http://pg.photos./ph/chain3turn/my_photos

http://www.livejournal.com/users/samplerlady/

http://literarylady.blogspot.com/

" To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. "

ph Chilton Pierce

[Guest guest]

,

I should have used your terminology.

However, my parents were uncompromising about infractions which is

why I have no " rap sheet " and other kids did.

These days I watch kids throw tantrums in stores, movie theaters,

etc., and the parents say to others who give them dirty looks " Oh,

if you ignore it, they'll see they're not drawing any attention by

it and give it up. "

My mother would have whacked my butt and said " Do you know how much

you are bothering other people with your immature behavior? Do you

know how much you are embarrassing me? Do you know that you are

acting like a little bitty baby? You are a bad boy! If you don't

stop it right now I will give you something to throw a tantrum

about! "

And usually after that I NEVER did it again, unless it was to be

deliberately defiant, in which case I got whacked again.

That was how I became a well behaved boy who never committed a crime

in his life.

I have taken educational psychology classes, however, and have

learned that whacking your kid generally makes them resentful and

causes them to act out in other ways.

And yet, I wonder where the line is drawn between quietly teaching a

kid what is proper and what isn't vs. inconveniencing everyone they

run into with their tantrums, explosions, and juvenile delinquent

behavior.

Tom

> Children make mistakes, for which they should be punished.

Children make mistakes and they should be taught not to do it again.

As children are people and don't always learn the lesson the first

time, they need to be taught again and again.

Lizzie

http://pg.photos./ph/chain3turn/my_photos

http://www.livejournal.com/users/samplerlady/

http://literarylady.blogspot.com/

" To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. "

ph Chilton Pierce

[Guest guest]

> These days I watch kids throw tantrums in stores, movie theaters,

> etc., and the parents say to others who give them dirty looks " Oh,

> if you ignore it, they'll see they're not drawing any attention by

> it and give it up. "

Maybe these kids are having meltdowns. Hitting a kid having a

meltdown doesn't seem to be a good way of handling it.

And yes, igonring negative behavior is a proven tool. However, most

parents forget the other side of that is rewarding positive behavior.

>

> My mother would have whacked my butt and said " Do you know how

much

> you are bothering other people with your immature behavior? Do you

> know how much you are embarrassing me? Do you know that you are

> acting like a little bitty baby? You are a bad boy! If you don't

> stop it right now I will give you something to throw a tantrum

> about! "

But you weren't a bad boy. You were a frustrated kid that didn't

know how to deal with that frustration. Belitting a child by name

calling ( " little bitty baby " ) shows no respect for the individual.

And personally, I don't think it's the child's job to keep the

parent from feeling embarrassed. There are age (physical and

mental) appropriate behaviors. A parent should know what these are

and act accordingly.

>

> And usually after that I NEVER did it again, unless it was to be

> deliberately defiant, in which case I got whacked again.

I am so sorry you were physically abused. It must be really painful

for you to relate that the one person in the world that should love

you and nurture above all others hit you.

>

> That was how I became a well behaved boy who never committed a

crime

> in his life.

This is based on fear of being punished, not because it's

the " right " thing to do. I suppose that's effective but....

>

> I have taken educational psychology classes, however, and have

> learned that whacking your kid generally makes them resentful and

> causes them to act out in other ways.

OKay, then there is one way left for teaching a child. It's a full

time job that shouldn't be handed over to daycares, teachers, day

camps. It should be handled by a full time parent at home. We've

created a society that doesn't respect the full time parent spending

their days teaching and disciplining the future citizens of the

world. Children are instead thrown into group situations where

there is one caregiver for every 4-8 children who cannot possible

give each of them the nurturing (including discipline) s/he needs.

We wonder why kids group together to create families and develop

an " us against the world " attitude.

Discipline, by the way comes from the root " disciple " which is

someone to be taught.

Lizzie

http://pg.photos./ph/chain3turn/my_photos

http://www.livejournal.com/users/samplerlady/

http://literarylady.blogspot.com/

" To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. "

ph Chilton Pierce

[Guest guest]

I only had to get spanked once or twice, and those were times when I did something that was life-threatening. Most of the time they would put me in the "naughty chair". This was a rather uncomfortable chair in the den from which I could see the TV and my playroom, but the TV was off of course and I couldn't play with the toys. I had to sit there for usually 15 minutes at a time. It was very effective.

Now, my brutish "friends" were raised differently. They got spankings fairly frequently or were sent to their rooms. I suppose the parents thought it was working because of how they cried and carried on, but as soon as they were out of sight and earshot, the crying would almost always stop. If they had been sent to their room, they would usually spit on the floor over their parent's bedroom, especially at night when the parents were actually in bed.

I don't know why they thought spanking would work on those kids anyway. They were always beating the living daylights out of each other as it was so a spanking was nothing.