A modest proposal for repurposing prisons and the employees in them

One of the problems we have in our society is that we have incarcerated people needlessly for low level drug crimes, causing us to spend over $90,000,000,000/year in keeping 0.5% of the USA's population locked up, and preventing them from looking for well paid (legal) work due to the fact that these people now have criminal records. 

Over the past few months, I have had a correspondence with a special-ed teacher in a New Jersey school district which is having trouble with an autistic child (19 years old) who is biting others, and is a danger to the school - but who is not being removed, due to the school's principal seeing this child as a source of school funding. The situation is very bad, and the staff is helpless in getting the problems fixed. 

So, I made the following suggestion:

I wonder if there isn't another way this problem can be attacked. The kid is 19, and he assaults people. What if someone made a formal complaint to the police, for assault. That would blow up things, and the administration might be forced to keep the kid out of school for the safety of others.... Also - what about notifying the parents of the other children that the biter could be putting their kids at risk? There are so many ways to blow up this situation before serious, permanent damage is done by this kid.....

And my friend responded:

I appreciate your ideas but with an administration (superintendent, principal & supervisor) who all came from a place where a whole class of 5 boys could be this bad and most classes had at least one of these (according to the gym teacher who also is from that school) I doubt much can be done. They did temporarily "exclude" (not expel) another kid, younger, who drank from the toilet and put his feces all over the walls in the bathroom. He also threw things at other kids (one of whom could get a detached retina easily as he is going blind anyway and has other medical issues). Our consulting psychiatrist did an eval now the parents must do their own before he is allowed to come back. Our shrink, who is terrific, said the kid needs meds before interacting with others but mom is opposed. At least that kid is out. Now -- this is where I said we have little hope of anything changing for the biter kid.... this poop smearing kid was in my friend (R)'s room. She is an outstanding teacher. She never, ever raises her voice. Every teacher knows she is wonderful and non assertive. When she got poop smear kid who is classified as 'autistic' put into her class and then he acted up she asked the principal why the kid was in her class and not the class (same ages) of all autistic. Well, anorexic principal didn't like being asked that I guess so when R was "observed and evaluated" the principal wrote lies, such as R didn't greet this monster kid when he arrived, didn't talk to him at all, etc. So she went to the union rep and it turns out the principal only admitted she was in the class 15 minutes not the 20 that is required for an observation so the whole thing had to be discarded !!! The union rep is convinced the ridiculous eval was due to R asking a legit question. Most of us who have been at the school 5 years and did NOT come from the principal's old school know that the reason this monster didn't get put in the autistic class was because that class is taught by the Japanese lady (aka 'golden girl') who, of course, taught with the principal in the old school district !!!! That teacher is never short of aides, like the rest of us are at times due to absenteeism. She gets first crack at substitutes, etc.

Many of our student's parents are just glad their kids are someplace and if the admin could figure out who notified these parents our jobs would be gone or we would be treated unfairly (like my pal R). Years ago in our adjacent school for the emotionally disturbed, a teacher did call the police and he was transferred to another school. Apparently the kids can injure us, maim us, grope us, etc and we have no alternative except a CPI (crisis prevention intervention) blocking action which does not work (according to the course we had to take) IF the student is bigger (the 19 year old is taller than me and all the female staff). I think we are stuck with having to put up with it because it is "special ed" -- I am definitely going to look for another job in April when jobs are posted, although I am realistic about finding a district that will hire someone over 50 --- it was hard enough when I was over 40 and looking and now I am "more expensive" since they will believe I won't take a starting salary. (I would take less but not starting).

P.S.: When "mentally challenged" people (usually men) get away with crimes, including murder, do you think anyone is going to do anything about this kid?


And this got me thinking....  What if we repurposed the prisons, so that they can hold "children" like this 19 year old "student" and remove him from society, so that he won't do any harm to innocent people?  They can be made very humane, provide lots of employment, and do a real good for people.

If we took ALL the money we'd save on incarceration and spend it on health care for the "mentally challenged", we'd free the low level drug users to earn more money and pay more in taxes.  Wouldn't this be a net gain for society?  Of course, corporations could have their current (and in my opinion, now foolish) drug tests for new employees, but then with most drugs being legal, I'd expect to see employee retention based on performance and not on what substances they consume outside of the office.  (Do we really need to arrest people like Willie Nelson for inhaling the vapors of his "medicine"? I'm pretty sure that his productivity (as well as other artists) is enhanced and not negated by cannabis.) We'd still have our laws against driving, using heavy equipment, or other high risk tasks, while under the influence of any drugs - so that abusers could be treated appropriately under the law.

In previous versions of my thought experiments on this topic, I never figured out a way to provide jobs in the areas that would lose them has my proposals taken effect. However, the answer was staring me in the face - just put a different class of people in "prisons" who really do need to be isolated from society, and keep the same players in the game. Yes, the court system will be affected. Police will not get as much overtime as they've been accustomed to. But in the whole, we'd be all be better off - including these "children" who will never likely be able to function in society as independent adults.....

Reading between the lines

It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election. 

Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.

Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.

- - - - - -

Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.

Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.

- - - - - -

We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey.  But they do.  

In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo.  I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer. 

- - - - - -

Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:

• America's relationship with Israel
• America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
• Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
• Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
• Arab hatred of Jews 
• The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
• Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
• Israel vs. Palestine
• Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
• Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
• Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
• Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
• Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
• Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East

The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.

Jihad vs. Crusade - Which is worse?

The above picture is from the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul - a former church, a former mosque, and now a museum. Istanbul (nee Constantinople) has been at the crossroads of Islam and Christianity for generations, as well as being the crossroads of East and West. And this building reflects the theme of today's post - Islamists vs. Christianists - which group is worse?

- - - - - -

In the past few days, our President has noted the human rights abuses committed by Christians in the past, as well as mentioning that the Crusades were not as holy as we'd like to paint them in the West. Christianists were up in arms, stating that it was Islam that struck the first blow, posting memes across social media to paint Christianity in a defensive light.

At the same time, others have been noting the human rights abuses committed by Muslims in the past (as well as most recent past), mentioning that the expansion of Islam had been one of military conquest - something that many Muslims hated to discuss, as they paint their religion as a peaceful one - ignoring their own history.

As I see it, both sides have committed great evils in the names of their faiths, and have blind spots regarding the history of their faiths. Is there any comparison possible without getting either side angry? I doubt it. Those who need absolute certainty that their faith is correct will try to destroy any evidence, any counter opinion that may suggest that their religion is wrong. 

- - - - - -

What we're seeing is a clash of civilizations. It's not the mainstream Christians and Muslims who have learned to live together that are clashing. Instead, it is those groups of people who want to turn back the clock a few hundred years to a time where there was nothing that could pose a challenge to their orthodoxy. And these people ARE the problem.

There is a large number of Muslims who consider any depiction of "the Prophet" to be heresy worth killing someone for.  Why?  If the word of God that was presented to him is that correct, then wouldn't God take care of justice? Who are they to determine what justice is, when it is only tradition that is responsible for a prohibition against depicting "the Prophet" in any way?  Christians have their hot buttons too. I remember a few years back when someone from Africa (if I recall correctly) painted a Madonna like figure with media made from Elephant dung. And the exhibition of this work set off a maelstrom of protests. Can any one person truly harm God if that God is all powerful?

Most modern people, Christian, Jew, and Muslim would look the other way if something were exhibited that offended us. Why doesn't everyone do this? As I see it, people who are alienated from modern society AND who have taken solace in religion need to believe in an "Old Testament-like God" who is ruthless in his punishments, draconian in his justice, and is as dysfunctional as they are. When events do not exhibit the "justice" they crave, they tale law into their own hands, execute that "justice", then say that they were only following God's will. But who are they to say exactly what God's will is? I don't see God coming down from on high to tell me (or others) what his will is. Who are these people to claim it?

- - - - - -

It's about time that the moderates of all faiths take back control of dogma from the extremists, and push the extremists out of civilized society. In the Mid-East, it may involve the use of heavy duty armaments, while in "civilized" nations it may involve curtailing certain rights - with a goal of forcing the extremists to move elsewhere. I have no solutions. I am proposing some thought experiments, as if we don't come up with ideas soon, the plague infecting the "Old World" may metastasize and infect the "New World" in ways we can't handle....  

Bibi's visit

Both left and right in the USA are following their tribe's "official" position. Sadly, no one is asking the right question - how much of America's security depends on Israel's existence? If we ignore moral dictates on whether Israel should exist or not, do we have any good reasons to preserve the country?

Israel and Palestine are in a deadly embrace, where Israel will likely lose because of demographics. The Haredim are deadbeat leeches, but they are preventing the moderates from cutting a deal. (One could say the same thing about a couple of Palestinian factions.) Unless a two-state solution is enacted soon, Israel will have no choice but implement a single state Apartheid type system where the natives of what might have been called Palestine are even more harshly repressed than they are now - and then cut off from the world, as South Africa was. Can America afford to take the "wrong side" if this happens?

There is an effective taboo in American politics - "Thou shalt not criticize Israel." In the urban areas (mostly Democratic), there is often a sizable and influential Jewish population, with the vast majority supporting Israel's existence, simply as a potential home in case of domestic persecution. In the rural areas (mostly Republican), there is often a sizable Christian fundamentalist population who wants to see Christ's second coming in their lifetime, and will do anything to facilitate it. Israel, more so than fixing Social Security or cutting military spending, is a third rail of American political thought. Touch it at your own peril.

We are now seeing an unholy alliance between America's rural (usually Republicans) politicians (playing to their base) and the hard core Israeli leadership that feels there is no way to ever cut a deal with the Palestinians. This group not only wants to emasculate Palestine, but abort the birth of a new nation. And they have good reasons to do so, considering what Hamas has done in the Gaza Strip. Yet, an equally good case could be made for striking a deal with the moderates, given Israel's relationship with Al Fatah in the West Bank.

Sadly, Congress has made an invitation for Bibi Netanyahu to come to America, so that he can speak to the Senate and House of Representatives. However, this invitation was not made through the State Department or any other part of the Executive branch of government, and protocol does not require our President to even recognize this visit. They want to make it harder for Obama to work with Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. They want to continue the war of words and isolation that started over 35 years ago when our embassy was taken, and hostages held for 444 days. (They conveniently ignore the fact that the USA was actively preparing to overthrow their newly elected government. and that the Iranians had no way to back down the rhetoric against the USA once this proof was pieced together - literally pieced together from shredded paperwork coming from our embassy.) 

In this case, Iran is a side show. The fundamentalists in both countries are afraid of what will happen if Palestine stands on its own. Would it be a threat to Israel? No one knows. Would Palestine accept a foreign presence on its soil to insure it is no threat to Israel? Probably not for long? Could a new Palestinian government hold its people responsible for any attacks on Israel? I doubt it. There are many good reasons for fearing the existence of a healthy Palestine.

Bibi, like many in his political faction, wants to prevent Palestine from ever existing. The illegal settlements have never been removed. Can Palestinians act "responsibly" when they continue to be squeezed out of their own lands? (We've seen this in our own country, with the forced migration of our "Indians" into reservations, and then the mismanagement of their resources by the Bureau Indian Affairs, with no profits being sent back to the native peoples. No wonder why the Indians fought for so long in the West!)

Could Palestine be a peaceful partner of Israel? Given how Jordan works with Israel to deal with water rights, the answer is a maybe. Could Palestine hold off fighting Israel as Egypt has done? I'd hope so. There are many possibilities for Palestine to prosper by having a peaceful and friendly relationship with Israel. But I'm not sure if the Palestinian people would realize this, and accept the fact that they have to co-exist with a powerful Israel.

The reality is - do we want to be on the side of the people who get to write the history books, or do we want to be seen supporting another lost cause - whatever that is? And even more importantly - what is in America's best interest regardless of tribal loyalty?