Hush on skin tone. Got it. Red Line attack-take 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I offered solutions in the deleted thread. In a nutshell:

Criminal mischief should result in immediate enlistment in the military. No go home and pack. Hold them and arrange for immediate enlistment. No second chances. First offense and you're gone. Unless you scare these kids they will not change. Their parents will not (or have tried and failed) to raise them to be productive members of society. Jailing them results in hardened criminals so it makes a bad situation worse.

-AA woman here who realizes that there is no redeeming some kids without immediate swift and harsh action.

Honestly, I think this shows a lot of disrespect for the men and women in uniform. We don't need violent criminals filling the ranks of our armed forces, particularly as so much of the job of an enlisted soldier is to engage with civilians in war zones. That you think the military - a proud tradition with many qualified and educated Americans - should be treated as a de facto penal colony shows how much you think of the armed forces.

+1

I am not the pp. I am a conservative who has a son in the military.
Perhaps the pp has so much respect for the military that she knows the military can actually turn some of these kids around. The military DEMANDS respect from those who are in the military - perhaps she believes this “tough love” of sorts is something these kids need because their parents have not been successful. They learn respect, discipline, and are expected to obey their chain of command.
I’m not sure making mandatory service for criminally mischievous kids is the answer, I am just trying to see her point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I offered solutions in the deleted thread. In a nutshell:

Criminal mischief should result in immediate enlistment in the military. No go home and pack. Hold them and arrange for immediate enlistment. No second chances. First offense and you're gone. Unless you scare these kids they will not change. Their parents will not (or have tried and failed) to raise them to be productive members of society. Jailing them results in hardened criminals so it makes a bad situation worse.

-AA woman here who realizes that there is no redeeming some kids without immediate swift and harsh action.

I think you're on to something. Immediate consequences. It's the only remedy.

It really is the only answer. You can save some with enrichment programs but the vast majority of these kids (who are violent prone) aren't interested in that sort of stuff. No mentor/big brother program will fix it. Arresting them just creates another generation of fatherless children (because many of these teens/young adults have children). I think the military would be an excellent resource to rehabilitate delinquents.

And again I ask you, since the earlier thread was deleted, why do you feel that military service is punishment? And how would our military be affected by including all these young people who are forced to be there and don't want to serve?

I answered your question. It's not about punishment, but behavior correction.

You seem to think that millions of kids are going to end up in this sort of enlistment. Hell, no. Once they realize the consequences are harsh, swift and real, you'll start to see a dramatic change. It's because of second chances and loose laws that cause these kids to think they're above the law.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the responsibilities of an enlisted soldier. This isn't WWII where you can send someone to the front lines and have them shoot away until they get shot themselves. Today's soldiers are operating in populated areas where the "enemy" is embedded and hiding among innocent men, women, and children. Someone with a penchant for violence and impulse control problems is basically the very last person who should be in the US military in 2015. Unless, of course, we are interested in seeing more Robert Bales.

[Anonymous]

My spouse said they did this with gang members in the 80s--they got highly specialized training in weapons and demolitions and then got out . #fail

[Anonymous]

These ideas are interesting. We don't do universal service as in Europe and S. America, and Job Corps is pretty mismanaged in some places (the best Job Corps is McDonalds). However, I can see a case for petty mischief makers being 'conscripted' into European type military service" living in barracks, setting up and taking down bandstands, digging ditches, nutrition , exercise and education, heavy discipline and structure. Transition into a program like job corps or further education when they can present a plan. Advisors of course to assist with this. Once they get to Wyoming, which has a desperate need for workers, they might find they like it.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, let's give them guns and ruin our military. I think chain gangs in hot pink uniforms would be great.

[Anonymous]

As a military family, the idea that the military itself--funding cut, fighting with one hand behind its back--should now babysit petty criminals is laughable to me. On the other hand, I do think our inner cities resemble war zones and we could absolutely have a military/civilian solution in a place like Chicago or Baltimore: send in a "surge" of National Guard (we can't send in the military due to posse comitatus unless we change our laws) to deal with the Isis like thugs who shoot children in alleys, and then a 50 year Marshall plan. Top-down. Tell people who choose to live there exactly what to do. I think the law abiding and productive would be grateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a military family, the idea that the military itself--funding cut, fighting with one hand behind its back--should now babysit petty criminals is laughable to me. On the other hand, I do think our inner cities resemble war zones and we could absolutely have a military/civilian solution in a place like Chicago or Baltimore: send in a "surge" of National Guard (we can't send in the military due to posse comitatus unless we change our laws) to deal with the Isis like thugs who shoot children in alleys, and then a 50 year Marshall plan. Top-down. Tell people who choose to live there exactly what to do. I think the law abiding and productive would be grateful.

The people who choose to live there...?

All those silly people, choosing to live in West Baltimore, when they could choose to live in Roland Park instead.

[Anonymous]

Actually, you are allowed to move in America. Yes, people choose to live there. I understand many are constrained by circumstance and as you and I know, they are most likely to be victims of the criminal thugs. Like the 'Awakening' units in Iraq, they could join forces to patrol/protect/ inform on their neighborhoods. Inner City Chicago is a War Zone. Just look away? We know how to deal with insurgencies; we have done it very well when allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, you are allowed to move in America. Yes, people choose to live there. I understand many are constrained by circumstance and as you and I know, they are most likely to be victims of the criminal thugs. Like the 'Awakening' units in Iraq, they could join forces to patrol/protect/ inform on their neighborhoods. Inner City Chicago is a War Zone. Just look away? We know how to deal with insurgencies; we have done it very well when allowed.

To where, and with what money? There are many people who would like to know the answers to these questions. So it would be great if you could provide them!

[Anonymous]

To anywhere, with the money you save by working. I would support a moving grants program as well. There are many more jobs in some areas than in the inner city. However, ultimately I would prefer law abiding people stayed and revitalized the inner cities, and I would prefer successful people moved in rather than people moving out--but to do that you need to mitigate crime and improve infrastructure (which I'm fine with spending on). But not one without the other. We pretty much wiped out the Italian mafia on the Eastern seaboard with heavy policing. Why do inner cities deserve less?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To anywhere, with the money you save by working. I would support a moving grants program as well. There are many more jobs in some areas than in the inner city. However, ultimately I would prefer law abiding people stayed and revitalized the inner cities, and I would prefer successful people moved in rather than people moving out--but to do that you need to mitigate crime and improve infrastructure (which I'm fine with spending on). But not one without the other. We pretty much wiped out the Italian mafia on the Eastern seaboard with heavy policing. Why do inner cities deserve less?

And don't forget to pack your unicorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, you are allowed to move in America. Yes, people choose to live there. I understand many are constrained by circumstance and as you and I know, they are most likely to be victims of the criminal thugs. Like the 'Awakening' units in Iraq, they could join forces to patrol/protect/ inform on their neighborhoods. Inner City Chicago is a War Zone. Just look away? We know how to deal with insurgencies; we have done it very well when allowed.

To where, and with what money? There are many people who would like to know the answers to these questions. So it would be great if you could provide them!

And I'm talking about using a police or military response to stabilize a pretty unliveable situation so people don't have to move. At what point do you say enough when kids are getting shot through the walls of their homes? We can stabilize insurgent zones overseas and build schools, but not here? I'd rather do it in our inner cities and Appalachia, the Southern poverty belt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I offered solutions in the deleted thread. In a nutshell:

Criminal mischief should result in immediate enlistment in the military. No go home and pack. Hold them and arrange for immediate enlistment. No second chances. First offense and you're gone. Unless you scare these kids they will not change. Their parents will not (or have tried and failed) to raise them to be productive members of society. Jailing them results in hardened criminals so it makes a bad situation worse.

-AA woman here who realizes that there is no redeeming some kids without immediate swift and harsh action.

Honestly, I think this shows a lot of disrespect for the men and women in uniform. We don't need violent criminals filling the ranks of our armed forces, particularly as so much of the job of an enlisted soldier is to engage with civilians in war zones. That you think the military - a proud tradition with many qualified and educated Americans - should be treated as a de facto penal colony shows how much you think of the armed forces.

+1

I am not the pp. I am a conservative who has a son in the military.
Perhaps the pp has so much respect for the military that she knows the military can actually turn some of these kids around. The military DEMANDS respect from those who are in the military - perhaps she believes this “tough love” of sorts is something these kids need because their parents have not been successful. They learn respect, discipline, and are expected to obey their chain of command.
I’m not sure making mandatory service for criminally mischievous kids is the answer, I am just trying to see her point.

Most of the kids I've seen in alternative settings will not survive in life, as they've been neglected by parents and passed along in the school system. I don't know what the answer is, but the military isn't it. If they can tell a teacher to fuck off, call women cunts to their faces, and physically intimidate staff members, they won't last a day in the service. Prison only hardens them, but it's - sadly - the path many will take.

We've fucked ourselves by refusing to allow schools to educate - fearing instead the wrath of central office for suspending too many disruptive kids yet REFUSING to provide the social services educators need in order to take proactive measures at the elementary level when kids start to show signs of abuse and neglect.

So we end up with gangs of assholes (yes, assholes) who thrive on harming others . . . b/c that's all they know. It's their way to control their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To anywhere, with the money you save by working. I would support a moving grants program as well. There are many more jobs in some areas than in the inner city. However, ultimately I would prefer law abiding people stayed and revitalized the inner cities, and I would prefer successful people moved in rather than people moving out--but to do that you need to mitigate crime and improve infrastructure (which I'm fine with spending on). But not one without the other. We pretty much wiped out the Italian mafia on the Eastern seaboard with heavy policing. Why do inner cities deserve less?

And don't forget to pack your unicorn.

Right, I always forget that the urban power structures don't actually believe there are solutions, just an endless cycle they can perpetually feed off of. That's why we protest the police exclusively, rather than seek transparency, improved training and more partnership. Inner city Baltimore or Chicago is no place you would live, but what are your ideas? I think it's time for a Marshall plan for high crime low income areas, it's a serious idea. Because what else has worked? What do you want? More same same? And the victims of the roving bands of thugs whether in the same neighborhood where people are terrorized or on metro or bus are just the cost of doing business? What are your solutions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To anywhere, with the money you save by working. I would support a moving grants program as well. There are many more jobs in some areas than in the inner city. However, ultimately I would prefer law abiding people stayed and revitalized the inner cities, and I would prefer successful people moved in rather than people moving out--but to do that you need to mitigate crime and improve infrastructure (which I'm fine with spending on). But not one without the other. We pretty much wiped out the Italian mafia on the Eastern seaboard with heavy policing. Why do inner cities deserve less?

Have you ever tried one of those poverty simulator games online? Something like this? http://playspent.org/html/

It's actually REALLY hard for the working poor to get ahead, and that assumes there are even jobs available for people who have most likely graduated from a local, and poorly resourced, high school.

Now imagine that you have a criminal record. Nothing serious, maybe you got caught with some pot when you were 19. Stupid mistake, but something that a middle-class kid could get beyond by hiring an attorney and having their record expunged. But if you're poor, that's going to keep you from gainful employment pretty much forever.

Maybe you have a child. Yeah, it wasn't the best timing, but you thought you were in love. How do you cover childcare when the cost of care is more than you earn?