Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message
...
That would be me. My 13 year old niece
was raped and killed in a church.

Under the 1st amendment, executions should
be done in public. Sell advertising, and make
a Roman spectacle out of it. I think we can
make enough to pay for their keep and legal
expenses.

I vote for clearing out all the death row inmates
one per week until they are all gone, with a bonus
New Years Day spectacular were any surplus
killers can all be terminated. Or maybe that
would be better done at half-time during the
Superbowl.

As long as they keep their nipples covered.

Scotty

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Of course, that's terrible.


Duh, Jon, that's the whole idea.




















--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message
...
That would be me. My 13 year old niece
was raped and killed in a church.

Under the 1st amendment, executions should
be done in public. Sell advertising, and make
a Roman spectacle out of it. I think we can
make enough to pay for their keep and legal
expenses.

I vote for clearing out all the death row inmates
one per week until they are all gone, with a bonus
New Years Day spectacular were any surplus
killers can all be terminated. Or maybe that
would be better done at half-time during the
Superbowl.


"Scotty" wrote

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no
purpose
to
execute someone.

Why not ask some of the survivors of a murder victim how
they
feel about it?

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Instead of sending them to Harvard, how about sending them to grade school
anf high school, and giving them an opportunity to go to college... that
would do way more than prison "reform."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"rgnmstr" wrote in message
oups.com...
For what it costs to keep someone in a federal prison, you could
send them to
Harvard for the same period of time. When they get out of Harvard, they
could
find a job that pays a lot more than being a punk crook or low level
drug
dealer..

Problem is most "punk crooks" wouldn't go to class and they'd be
breaking into the dorm rooms of the students who did. Get real.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

The whiners here remind me of the guy I heard call into a radio talk
show one day who proceeded to tell the host that the reason that po
blacks car jack is that it is demeaning to ride the bus. He then
proceeded to state that there should be free car rental entitlements
for people who can't afford cars.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Which whiners are those? Perhaps the people who think guns and violence are
the answer to all of our problems....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"rgnmstr" wrote in message
oups.com...
The whiners here remind me of the guy I heard call into a radio talk
show one day who proceeded to tell the host that the reason that po
blacks car jack is that it is demeaning to ride the bus. He then
proceeded to state that there should be free car rental entitlements
for people who can't afford cars.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Which whiners are those? Perhaps the people who think guns and
violence are
the answer to all of our problems....

Ugh, no, the people who want to send murderers to Harvard.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I don't think anyone seriously believes that... well, almost nobody. g

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"rgnmstr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Which whiners are those? Perhaps the people who think guns and
violence are
the answer to all of our problems....

Ugh, no, the people who want to send murderers to Harvard.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Max,

I thought our Prisons purpose was to reform.

That has always been the lofty, altruistic goal, but it's largely hogwash.
Prisons are prisons, not so-called correctional institutions.

Not all are death row. If
we can't reform and we can't execute why are we providing free room and
broad for wrong doers.

Keeps them from visiting my house and yours in the wee hours?

The ones being punished are the law abiding
citizen tax payers. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Really? Do you think it is not worth the investment in incarcerative
facilities to keep dangerous people out of the mainstream of society?

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform people if
we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

I don't think the pretense was abandoned. They are still called
"correctional facilities" and the guards are called "correctional officers."
I just love that politically correct BS.

As for spending elsewhere, I'm not sure it's a good investment to attempt to
rehabilitate someone who has been damaging to society, especially in light
of the fact that such attempts have been largely fruitless. Until we really
learn how to make a bad guy good, I think it's wasted effort and money.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:40:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform people if
we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

For what it costs to keep someone in a federal prison, you could send them
to
Harvard for the same period of time. When they get out of Harvard, they
could
find a job that pays a lot more than being a punk crook or low level drug
dealer.

So what you're saying is that if you wish to attend Harvard, don't waste
time studying your ass off, achieving excellent grades and accumulating
academic awards? Rather just break into a store and steal something?

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Instead of sending them to Harvard, how about sending them to grade school
anf high school, and giving them an opportunity to go to college... that
would do way more than prison "reform."

Most of those cons for whom you'd like to offer up this opportunity were the
same ones that dropped out of school before. What makes you think they'll
do any better the second time around?

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Errr... if you're a guy and you like young boys, I would think that would
qualify as being gay. But you seem to have some inside knowledge. g

No inside knowledge needed. One only has to read the papers and watch TV.
The Roman Catholic Church has been most "entertaining."

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Who advocated sending murderers to Harvard? You sure are an
excellent example of
how the U.S. public educational system fails for those who need it the
most. .

Hey indian, try to keep up. The discussion was about death row
inmates. You chimed in posting that Harvard would be cheaper than life
in prison. Now start paying attention or at least remembering what you
posted.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I don't believe there's much hope for them. However, there is hope for those
who have not yet been put away. There are opportunities in prison for high
school equivalency and beyond, but there's not much opportunity for when
prisoners are paroled.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Instead of sending them to Harvard, how about sending them to grade
school anf high school, and giving them an opportunity to go to
college... that would do way more than prison "reform."

Most of those cons for whom you'd like to offer up this opportunity were
the same ones that dropped out of school before. What makes you think
they'll do any better the second time around?

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

No one truly believes much reform is going on.

Actually, we know quite well how to prevent good guys from going bad. We
just don't avail ourselves of the opportunity.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform people
if we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

I don't think the pretense was abandoned. They are still called
"correctional facilities" and the guards are called "correctional
officers." I just love that politically correct BS.

As for spending elsewhere, I'm not sure it's a good investment to attempt
to rehabilitate someone who has been damaging to society, especially in
light of the fact that such attempts have been largely fruitless. Until
we really learn how to make a bad guy good, I think it's wasted effort and
money.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I can't help it now... every time I see a priest, I think "child molester."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Errr... if you're a guy and you like young boys, I would think that would
qualify as being gay. But you seem to have some inside knowledge. g

No inside knowledge needed. One only has to read the papers and watch TV.
The Roman Catholic Church has been most "entertaining."

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Max,

Most will be turned loose on Society. If They aren't reformed I sure as
Hell don't think it is a good investment. Do you?

Max, I'm finished with this discussion. It's a NO WIN proposition.

I'm glad Tookie is dead. That is one problem solved; and for good!

Bye Bye Tookie
 

When I see a nun, I think "child abuser"
The priests have managed to overshadow the vicious beatings we took as kids
in catholic classrooms. I'm not just talking a slap on the wrist, but
violent thrashings for minor infractions. I took a few myself, although my
wife might argue that they straightened me out. Almost lost my hearing
thanks to Sister Rose Marie. She needed some serious anger management.
Scout


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I can't help it now... every time I see a priest, I think "child molester."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Errr... if you're a guy and you like young boys, I would think that
would qualify as being gay. But you seem to have some inside knowledge.
g

No inside knowledge needed. One only has to read the papers and watch
TV. The Roman Catholic Church has been most "entertaining."

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

So what you're saying is that the schools educate and mold character.
Now that's funny!



"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:25:23 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:40:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform people
if
we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

For what it costs to keep someone in a federal prison, you could send
them
to
Harvard for the same period of time. When they get out of Harvard, they
could
find a job that pays a lot more than being a punk crook or low level
drug
dealer.

So what you're saying is that if you wish to attend Harvard, don't waste
time studying your ass off, achieving excellent grades and accumulating
academic awards? Rather just break into a store and steal something?

Max


You are apparently on an intellectual par with Sloco. I never suggested
sending
convicted criminals to Harvard. I merely pointed out that a very high
quality
education was less expensive than keeping someone in prison. The problem
in the
US is that people think providing a good education is too expensive and
raises
their taxes. My feeling is that if we gave kids the absolutely best
education
possible, rather than the half-hearted system we have now, there would be
fewer
candidates for prison, and our net cost would be lower.

Prevent the problem up front, instead of trying to patch it afterwards.


Commodore Joe Redcloud

Bye Bye Tookie
 

So what you're saying is, ...no chance in hell, or the USA.


"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:18:19 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote:

So what you're saying is that the schools educate and mold character.
Now that's funny!


No, I'm saying that they "could" if things were done with the idea of
doing the
best possible job, rather than the minimum allowable by law.




"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:25:23 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:40:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform
people
if
we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

For what it costs to keep someone in a federal prison, you could send
them
to
Harvard for the same period of time. When they get out of Harvard,
they
could
find a job that pays a lot more than being a punk crook or low level
drug
dealer.

So what you're saying is that if you wish to attend Harvard, don't waste
time studying your ass off, achieving excellent grades and accumulating
academic awards? Rather just break into a store and steal something?

Max


You are apparently on an intellectual par with Sloco. I never suggested
sending
convicted criminals to Harvard. I merely pointed out that a very high
quality
education was less expensive than keeping someone in prison. The problem
in the
US is that people think providing a good education is too expensive and
raises
their taxes. My feeling is that if we gave kids the absolutely best
education
possible, rather than the half-hearted system we have now, there would
be
fewer
candidates for prison, and our net cost would be lower.

Prevent the problem up front, instead of trying to patch it afterwards.


Commodore Joe Redcloud


Commodore Joe Redcloud

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Thats what Robert Broady is saying. To bad he has to use his foul
puppet to do so.

Joe

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Prisons are training grounds for criminals
where they learn how to rob, cheat, steel,
and evade police.

"Thom Stewart" wrote
I thought our Prisons purpose was to reform.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Yeah, I didn't have a great time either... got a couple of undeserved
thashings, the worst of which was a dowel rod to the back of my legs, but
then told the person who did it to f*ck off and never went back. Amazingly,
my parents sided with me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scout" wrote in message
...
When I see a nun, I think "child abuser"
The priests have managed to overshadow the vicious beatings we took as
kids in catholic classrooms. I'm not just talking a slap on the wrist, but
violent thrashings for minor infractions. I took a few myself, although my
wife might argue that they straightened me out. Almost lost my hearing
thanks to Sister Rose Marie. She needed some serious anger management.
Scout


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I can't help it now... every time I see a priest, I think "child
molester."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Errr... if you're a guy and you like young boys, I would think that
would qualify as being gay. But you seem to have some inside knowledge.
g

No inside knowledge needed. One only has to read the papers and watch
TV. The Roman Catholic Church has been most "entertaining."

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Absolutely correct! Therefore, we should strive to eliminate prisons, and
certainly we should not build more of them. We need to prevent people from
committing crimes to begin with.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
Prisons are training grounds for criminals
where they learn how to rob, cheat, steel,
and evade police.

"Thom Stewart" wrote
I thought our Prisons purpose was to reform.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Actually, we know quite well how to prevent good guys from going bad. We
just don't avail ourselves of the opportunity.

Okay, I'll bite. How do we do that?

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:25:23 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:40:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform people
if
we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

For what it costs to keep someone in a federal prison, you could send
them
to
Harvard for the same period of time. When they get out of Harvard, they
could
find a job that pays a lot more than being a punk crook or low level
drug
dealer.

So what you're saying is that if you wish to attend Harvard, don't waste
time studying your ass off, achieving excellent grades and accumulating
academic awards? Rather just break into a store and steal something?

Max


You are apparently on an intellectual par with Sloco. I never suggested
sending
convicted criminals to Harvard. I merely pointed out that a very high
quality
education was less expensive than keeping someone in prison.

Perhaps you simply have no ability to make your points concise and
understandable. Of course it's always easier to blame everyone but yourself
for the misperception.

The problem in the
US is that people think providing a good education is too expensive and
raises
their taxes.

Really? Is that why local, state, and the federal governments throw copious
amounts of money indiscriminatly and ineffectively at education?

My feeling is that if we gave kids the absolutely best education
possible, rather than the half-hearted system we have now, there would be
fewer
candidates for prison, and our net cost would be lower.

Not even close. Unless you have kids that *want* an education, you're
barking up a tree in the wrong forest. The solution must begin at home,
where kids have to be instilled with the desire to be educated, and
convinced that an education is critical to their future well-being. Of
course if their parent(s) is/are clueless to these issues, the kid will be
similarly clueless. The state requires the kid to attend school, which
he/she hates and wants nothing more than to avoid. It can be the best, most
innovative and efficient educational program in existence, but futile if the
kid isn't interested.

Prevent the problem up front, instead of trying to patch it afterwards.

That's always the best concept, but you've got the methods all wrong.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I think it starts, as you said, with instilling the desire to learn in kids
from their parents. So, part of it is to try and keep families together, or
if that's not possible, ensure that single parents have enough bandwidth to
help their kids and still earn a decent wage.

We need to pay teachers more, since this will attract better teachers. We
need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of teaching to the test.

Of course, all this smacks of socialism, but actually it makes good business
sense.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Actually, we know quite well how to prevent good guys from going bad. We
just don't avail ourselves of the opportunity.

Okay, I'll bite. How do we do that?

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Maxprop wrote:
My logic is fine, despite your disagreement.

Hurling insults and repeating oneself endlessly is not
"logic." Did you go to public schools?

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in ...
I think it starts, as you said, with instilling the desire to
learn in kids
from their parents. So, part of it is to try and keep families
together,


Right, there should be laws against single parenting, and homo's
rearing kids.



We need to pay teachers more, since this will attract better
teachers. We
need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of teaching to the
test.


I agree, double their salaries NOW!



Of course, all this smacks of socialism, but actually it makes
good business
sense.


Socialism or liberalism? Same-same.

Scotty

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I think it starts, as you said, with instilling the desire to
learn in kids
from their parents. So, part of it is to try and keep families
together,


Scotty wrote:
Right, there should be laws against single parenting, and homo's
rearing kids.


Nah, we don't need more laws. We should just stone them...
or maybe burn them.





We need to pay teachers more, since this will attract better
teachers. We
need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of teaching to the
test.


How would you avoid this?


I agree, double their salaries NOW!


The funny thing is, liberals act as though we're not already
spending a lot of money on schools; many (perhaps most)
conservatives act as though most teachers decided to become
teachers as a 'get-rich-quick' scheme.






Of course, all this smacks of socialism, but actually it makes
good business
sense.



Socialism or liberalism? Same-same.


It's all communism, comrade.

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
:
: "Capt. JG" wrote in ...

: We need to pay teachers more, since this will
attract better
: teachers. We
: need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of
teaching to the
: test.
:
:
: I agree, double their salaries NOW!
:

Paying teachers more won't work. In the past, we
paid top wages to sailing instructors. We still
ended up with some lazy, crappy instructors. The
good instructors would work for less.
Same with teachers. The really good ones don't
teach for the money. Most that I know would
continue even if you cut their pay in half. I
think you know some like that.
S.



:
: Of course, all this smacks of socialism, but
actually it makes
: good business
: sense.
:
:
: Socialism or liberalism? Same-same.
:
: Scotty
:
:

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in ...
I think it starts, as you said, with instilling the desire to
learn in kids
from their parents. So, part of it is to try and keep families
together,


Right, there should be laws against single parenting, and homo's
rearing kids.

But wait... you're telling me that gays are responsible for criminals in
prison and hurricanes? How is that possible?


We need to pay teachers more, since this will attract better
teachers. We
need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of teaching to the
test.


I agree, double their salaries NOW!

That would be a good start. I have a friend who would love to teach, but
just can't afford the 1/3 of her current salary. Even if it was 50% of her
current salary, she'd probably do it.


Of course, all this smacks of socialism, but actually it makes
good business
sense.


Socialism or liberalism? Same-same.

good business sense. same-same

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
We need to pay teachers more, since this will attract better
teachers. We
need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of teaching to the
test.


How would you avoid this?

Putting more control into the hand of the local educators and the state vs.
the fed.

It's all communism, comrade.

Why do you think a baby's first words are invariably "Da Da"?

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Yes, it will work. You have to give people a living wage that's somewhere
close to the value they contribute to society. Teachers should not have to
pay for their own supplies, for example.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"NotPony" wrote in message
news:cHzpf.9935$aU4.2166@trnddc06...

Paying teachers more won't work. In the past, we
paid top wages to sailing instructors. We still
ended up with some lazy, crappy instructors. The
good instructors would work for less.
Same with teachers. The really good ones don't
teach for the money. Most that I know would
continue even if you cut their pay in half. I
think you know some like that.
S.

Most have. But, teachers are under pressure to go elsewhere.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

... We
need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of teaching to the
test.


How would you avoid this?


Capt. JG wrote:
Putting more control into the hand of the local educators and the state vs.
the fed.


Agreed. I am flabbergasted that there are "conservatives"
who are in favor of more Federal oversight of schools.

OTOH uniform testing standards are a good idea, as is merit
pay for teachers.

One of the biggest problems America faces is that the
schools are turning out lots and lots of MBAs and lawyers,
but fewer engineers & doctors (and I don't mean Ph.D's in
Recreational Science).


It's all communism, comrade.


Why do you think a baby's first words are invariably "Da Da"?



Because of the flouride in the water. It's a plot, I tell you!

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Putting more control into the hand of the local educators


Dave wrote:
In NYC, at least, that means the teachers' union.

Is this from the same folks who champion putting control of the chicken coop
into the hand of the foxes?

It certainly does, if you start out with the assumption that
teachers are all stupid & lazy & corrupt louts who became
teachers for the sole purpose of gleefully defrauding the
public.

Maybe your experiences in school led you to have these
prejudices against teachers?

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
One of the biggest problems America faces is that the schools are turning
out lots and lots of MBAs and lawyers, but fewer engineers & doctors

Hey, watch it buster... g

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, it will work. You have to give people a living wage that's
somewhere
close to the value they contribute to society. Teachers should
not have to
pay for their own supplies, for example.


They don't.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"NotPony" wrote in message
news:cHzpf.9935$aU4.2166@trnddc06...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
:
: "Capt. JG" wrote in ...

: We need to pay teachers more, since this will
attract better
: teachers. We
: need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of
teaching to the
: test.
:
:
: I agree, double their salaries NOW!
:

Paying teachers more won't work.


Couldn't we at least try it for a decade and see what happens?


In the past, we
paid top wages to sailing instructors. We still
ended up with some lazy, crappy instructors. The
good instructors would work for less.
Same with teachers. The really good ones don't
teach for the money. Most that I know would
continue even if you cut their pay in half. I
think you know some like that.


Shhhhhhh, keep that under your hat.


Scotty

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Where's Scout when ya need him?



"Dave" wrote this bull****....

It certainly does, if you start out with the assumption that
teachers are all stupid & lazy & corrupt louts who became
teachers for the sole purpose of gleefully defrauding the
public.

Maybe your experiences in school led you to have these
prejudices against teachers?

My conclusions about today's unionized teachers do indeed
derive in part
from my own experiences in school, and the contrast I later
observed. You
see, my school days were before teachers became unionized, and
my father was
for a number of years the president of the local school board.
I had a
chance to see at close range the results of good school
management. Those
teachers who performed got good raises and stayed around. Those
who didn't
perform didn't last more than a year or two. They either moved
on or got out
of the profession. The ones who remained where genuinely
capable in their
fields and interested in their students.

Fast forward 20 years and the teachers in the public schools
are almost
without exception drawn from the ranks of those who can't
master any
substantive field and so study "education." Unionized. No
merit pay. No
work beyond the minimum required in the union contract.
Impossible to fire
if they're incompetent. And it's 30 years and out.

Make no mistake, I have seen many capable teachers in NYC. But
with one or
two exceptions they're non-union and working in the private
schools, not in
the unionized public schools.