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.

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

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

I thought our Prisons purpose was to reform. 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. The ones being punished are the law abiding
citizen tax payers. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Ole Thom

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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
:
:

"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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
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,

A lofty goal, to be sure, but we already have three or four generations of
people (crossing all racial and ethnic lines, by the way) who are convinced
that the two-parent home is obsolete and that education is pointless. The
situation is exacerbating, not remitting.

ensure that single parents have enough bandwidth to help their kids and
still earn a decent wage.

Care to translate your "bandwidth" analogy into English?


We need to pay teachers more, since this will attract better teachers.

Numerous studies have demonstrated redundantly that money is not the prime
motivator in attracting individuals to certain professions, teaching
included. But tying the teacher's hands with respect to discipline, leaving
him prone to litigation, open to student abuse, and hating his/her job is
hardly conducive to attracting quality individuals to education. Once again
the *solution* of throwing money at the problem is and has been a failure.

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.

Education in the USA is highly socialistic already, so what's the big deal.
A proper identification of the problem is the answer, however. Too bad that
every time the problem is examined under a microscope and the real issues
are unearthed, the political correctness police prohibit airing and dealing
with them. Heaven forbid that we might examine the drawbacks of
single-parent families, cultural anti-education biases, etc.

Max