Well, he buys his victim from her father so she will no longer be a slut but a wife. Then lucky her, she gets to be the property of her rapist for the rest of her life, if he will have her. If he will not, she is damaged goods and an unmarryable disgrace to her father.
In the 21st Century, I suppose you would legitimize rape by being able to prove it. Because don't all men know that women really do want nothing more than to be entered and pounded mercilessly exactly the way men want to do it? Of course we do. I was once accused of being crabby, and he said it "must be" due to "dick deprivation." Well OF COURSE it was. What else matters? What else is there to make a woman at all unhappy?
Fucking Assholes-- I can't even go on I'm so pissed. Men are completely useless (and they know it).
Monday, August 20, 2012
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Why Isn't Your Kid Learning?
Well probably because he doesn't want to. In high school, there are so many things more important to students than learning. The system is not set up in a very productive way. There are three groups of people who are stuck in a place where they do not want to be- prisoners, mental patients, and students (got that from TV, but it's true).
Even we as adults can remember the priorities we had as teenagers. There was food, sleep, hoping we weren't regarded as a Nerd, driving a car (one young man told me today, "I am a man- I got my driver's license this morning."...how cute is that?), the opposite sex, body obsession, and even grades. Not learning-- but grades. I believe that finding the high school student who is content to go to school for the joy of learning would be as easy as finding a specific dust speck on a specific clover in a field of clovers (thanks Ted).
We as parents and teachers attempt bribery, punishment, threats, praise...yet all those nasty children seem to care about is their own physical and emotional comfort. Unlike adults, who can forego climate control, leather seats, a 15 minute break every 2 hours, cheesecake, entertainment, sex, and the internet. Why is it that teens can't or won't just stop complaining, try their hardest on every subject for 7 hours every day, do their chores and homework without being told, take whatever we can afford to give them or get a job to afford more, and ignore the need to be heard, appreciated, taken seriously, thanked? Why? It seems so easy when adults perform at those standards!
Are you getting some idea of what your child's teachers are up against? They are doing a job that will benefit the entire country if the students are successful, have more degrees than most people on Earth yet make a mid-line salary, they help raise other people's children, and are then villified by the uneducated, uninformed public whose kids fail the state test.
Studies have shown repeatedly, for years and years, from the fields of education, psychology, and sociology, that the most successful students have smart, involved parents. If you are a parent who views school as a free babysitting service, or if you are so worn out from raising kids for 14 years that you use the convenient excuse, "he has to learn to take care of himself" to feel less guilty about not fulfilling your parental obligation to the kid's education-- then fine. The teachers and the school will discipline your kid then argue back with you about it. They will teach your kid manners, industry, kindness, self-awareness, birth control, math , and English while you sit around and bitch that they don't deserve another dime of your tax money; that $500.00 you paid last year over the course of 52 weeks to have help with your child, for the benefit of society.
Can you read this? Thank a teacher.
Did you learn in a public school? Thank your state Boad of Education.
Are public servants collecting welfare and food stamps? Thank the Unions.
Just think- you can pay for schools now or prisons later. (i know i know...the racists will say 'prisons later'...)
Now. Is your child getting enough healthy food on a daily basis? School lunches are mandated to meet certain nutritional criteria - unlike the twinkies in your pantry.
Is your child receiving enough love and emotional support at home? Teachers are required to show their students respect - unlike the mother who yells and hits every time she feels her fat ass has not been sufficiently kissed by her kids.
Teachers are required to refer at-risk students to the guidance counselor or school psychologist - unlike many parents who have to work long hard hours to get food on the table and gas in the car and are then too wiped out to listen to their kid's needs (which admittedly often sound like hostile bitching and complaining, but so did you at that age). Yes its admirable that you work so hard, but it does not negate your obligation to your child.
Now then, to solve the problem as a pragmaticlander:
1. Make tenure renewable every 5 years instead of every lifetime.
2. It is important that teachers have access to legal representation in case they get sued by a moron who needs a scapegoat for their own failure.
3. Can parents be held accountable for homework and behavior?
4. More vegetables and less soda = improved focus and attitude.
5. Meet your child's teachers. Email your child's teachers. Check your child's grades.
6. Call the cell phone company. Pay $5 a month to have your kid's phone shut off during school hours. They can call you when it comes back on at 3:00.
7. Set the example. If learning appears to be important to you it will become important to them.
Remember-- teachers, social workers, and cops save lives every day. Pay them like doctors, soldiers, and politicians.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Those Darn Illegals
Who is the criminal? The person entering the United States to reap the benefits of a better life which has been allowed by us, or the employers who exploit human beings in order to get their avocadoes picked as cheaply as possible?
Example: I recently heard a story about a family farmer in California who employed illegals for a pittance and defended it by providing housing. He would bitch when the workers sent the little bit of money he paid them home to their families in the Old Country. Then, lo and behold, the workers unionized and he could no longer afford to provide housing because he now had to provide higher wages. Now, doesn't it seem that any home that costs less than minimum wage must be kind of a dump? Does this sound at all like plantation slavery to anyone else?
Poor me, I have to pay people to work for me. Even though I broke the law as much as they did, it's the union's fault I can't tell them where to live anymore. boo hoo.
Now, the simple law of supply and demand, which should be well understood by all adults in a free economy, would say that if we cut off the jobs and entitlement benefits to undocumented people, they would not try to come here illegally. The problem with that is the US based criminals who are all too willing to provide assistance. It is not that the workers are UNdocumented, it is that they are FALSELY documented. How many forms of proof should an employer require of a job applicant who might speak little or broken English? Because no matter what paperwork becomes required (Arizona), they will find a way to get it. The point is- how do we prove whether the employer knew s/he was hiring illegals?
Um, if they are willing to work for less than minimum wage. That's how.
"But what if the employer pays cash?" Well, then we need investigators to go over the tax records of businesses very carefully, and intensify the negative consequences.
"You mean put business owners in jail with drug dealers and killers?"
That sounds a lot like "You mean put the rich in jail with the poor?"
Yup.
Drug dealers are business owners in a manner of speaking, just undocumented business...oh wait- isn't that the same thing?
I am at the top of the list of people who believe in personal liberty, but when it comes to selling products and services to the American people, regulation is certainly in order. We can't stop people from developing a taste for money and power once they get that first whiff, but we can attempt to theoretically legally control the immoral things they might to do one another to get it.
Want to prevent the exploitation of anchor babies? First I want to know this- how many pregnant women have died trying to enter this country to have an anchor baby here?
Second- you loons who want to selectively apply the 14th amendment-- get over it. The anchor babies have citizenship and they are citizens. BUT, children who are American citizens whose parents go to prison are sent to foster care. We need to be more strict at the food stamp office. Parents who are illegal but whose children are citizens should be given the choice between deportation together or parent deportation/ child foster care. The only way to avoid having one's child taken would be to not apply for any public services. School included. Here is where the republican principle of "take care of yourself" would be perfectly applicable. The parents would need a job that pays well enough to obtain all of the child's care without public asistance so they could remain under the radar.
"But how can an illegal immigrant acquire such employment" you ask?... Precisely.
Or, through the legal channels, of course. Get documented before coming. People do it every day. Every single day.
"But what about giving legal custody to a legal resident who is a friend or relative?"
Obviously, they would need documentation/ identification to enter into such a contract.
"But it is so easy to get fake ones!"
OK, so intensify the penalties for anyone (the relative) who withholds the location of an illegal. Send everyone into hiding except the child. The child will be in foster care hidden from family and parents, and like all foster children, available for adoption after 12 months if the parents do not meet requirements.
"Wouldn't that lead to millions of uneducated children working long hours for slave wages?"
Possibly, and if that's what the parents want for their children then that is their choice. Otherwise, don't be illegal.
So to sum up:
1. Punish employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. If you are worried this might lead to racial discrimination, the ability to speak basic English could become a mandated employment requirement. (Face it, there are a lot of US born Americans who can barely speak proper English.)
2. Increase vigilance toward business activity.
3. Remove the anchor babies from their criminal parents as we do to US born citizens. Remove access to public support from illegal parents of anchor babies.
4. Punish those who would hide and/or help illegals by falsifying documents or impersonating a guardian. You may love your cousin, but is her desire to avoid legal documentation worth your own nickel in the pen?
5. Figure out if an immigration quota is absolutely necessary or if it can be relaxed; and ease the naturalization process.
6. Once people are documented, they can send all the money back to the Old Country they want, after they have paid taxes and living expenses here.
If these measures are not a step in the right direction toward balancing the budget and stimulating the economy, what is?
Progressives get- more opportunity for everybody in the form of jobs, including prison and IRS jobs; and at least minimum wage for all workers in the US (except tipped employees).
Conservatives get- reduction in the number of illegal immigrants, more tax revenue without raising rates, less entitlement expense.
We can use negative reinforcement productively to ensure the availablity of opportunity, and to decrease the exploitation of workers both directly and indirectly through tax-funded entitlement costs.
Also, we should cap the salaries of Congresspeople at $100,000. They do not deserve any more than that. If anyone should make more money, it's cops, teachers, social workers, paramedics, and rescue workers. I think soldiers are well compensated, but will have to look into it.
Maybe next time we will examine public salary schedules. If your child is not learning, have you asked what more you could be doing at home? Or the actual cost for smaller class sizes? Public servants' perspective coming soon.
Example: I recently heard a story about a family farmer in California who employed illegals for a pittance and defended it by providing housing. He would bitch when the workers sent the little bit of money he paid them home to their families in the Old Country. Then, lo and behold, the workers unionized and he could no longer afford to provide housing because he now had to provide higher wages. Now, doesn't it seem that any home that costs less than minimum wage must be kind of a dump? Does this sound at all like plantation slavery to anyone else?
Poor me, I have to pay people to work for me. Even though I broke the law as much as they did, it's the union's fault I can't tell them where to live anymore. boo hoo.
Now, the simple law of supply and demand, which should be well understood by all adults in a free economy, would say that if we cut off the jobs and entitlement benefits to undocumented people, they would not try to come here illegally. The problem with that is the US based criminals who are all too willing to provide assistance. It is not that the workers are UNdocumented, it is that they are FALSELY documented. How many forms of proof should an employer require of a job applicant who might speak little or broken English? Because no matter what paperwork becomes required (Arizona), they will find a way to get it. The point is- how do we prove whether the employer knew s/he was hiring illegals?
Um, if they are willing to work for less than minimum wage. That's how.
"But what if the employer pays cash?" Well, then we need investigators to go over the tax records of businesses very carefully, and intensify the negative consequences.
"You mean put business owners in jail with drug dealers and killers?"
That sounds a lot like "You mean put the rich in jail with the poor?"
Yup.
Drug dealers are business owners in a manner of speaking, just undocumented business...oh wait- isn't that the same thing?
I am at the top of the list of people who believe in personal liberty, but when it comes to selling products and services to the American people, regulation is certainly in order. We can't stop people from developing a taste for money and power once they get that first whiff, but we can attempt to theoretically legally control the immoral things they might to do one another to get it.
Want to prevent the exploitation of anchor babies? First I want to know this- how many pregnant women have died trying to enter this country to have an anchor baby here?
Second- you loons who want to selectively apply the 14th amendment-- get over it. The anchor babies have citizenship and they are citizens. BUT, children who are American citizens whose parents go to prison are sent to foster care. We need to be more strict at the food stamp office. Parents who are illegal but whose children are citizens should be given the choice between deportation together or parent deportation/ child foster care. The only way to avoid having one's child taken would be to not apply for any public services. School included. Here is where the republican principle of "take care of yourself" would be perfectly applicable. The parents would need a job that pays well enough to obtain all of the child's care without public asistance so they could remain under the radar.
"But how can an illegal immigrant acquire such employment" you ask?... Precisely.
Or, through the legal channels, of course. Get documented before coming. People do it every day. Every single day.
"But what about giving legal custody to a legal resident who is a friend or relative?"
Obviously, they would need documentation/ identification to enter into such a contract.
"But it is so easy to get fake ones!"
OK, so intensify the penalties for anyone (the relative) who withholds the location of an illegal. Send everyone into hiding except the child. The child will be in foster care hidden from family and parents, and like all foster children, available for adoption after 12 months if the parents do not meet requirements.
"Wouldn't that lead to millions of uneducated children working long hours for slave wages?"
Possibly, and if that's what the parents want for their children then that is their choice. Otherwise, don't be illegal.
So to sum up:
1. Punish employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. If you are worried this might lead to racial discrimination, the ability to speak basic English could become a mandated employment requirement. (Face it, there are a lot of US born Americans who can barely speak proper English.)
2. Increase vigilance toward business activity.
3. Remove the anchor babies from their criminal parents as we do to US born citizens. Remove access to public support from illegal parents of anchor babies.
4. Punish those who would hide and/or help illegals by falsifying documents or impersonating a guardian. You may love your cousin, but is her desire to avoid legal documentation worth your own nickel in the pen?
5. Figure out if an immigration quota is absolutely necessary or if it can be relaxed; and ease the naturalization process.
6. Once people are documented, they can send all the money back to the Old Country they want, after they have paid taxes and living expenses here.
If these measures are not a step in the right direction toward balancing the budget and stimulating the economy, what is?
Progressives get- more opportunity for everybody in the form of jobs, including prison and IRS jobs; and at least minimum wage for all workers in the US (except tipped employees).
Conservatives get- reduction in the number of illegal immigrants, more tax revenue without raising rates, less entitlement expense.
We can use negative reinforcement productively to ensure the availablity of opportunity, and to decrease the exploitation of workers both directly and indirectly through tax-funded entitlement costs.
Also, we should cap the salaries of Congresspeople at $100,000. They do not deserve any more than that. If anyone should make more money, it's cops, teachers, social workers, paramedics, and rescue workers. I think soldiers are well compensated, but will have to look into it.
Maybe next time we will examine public salary schedules. If your child is not learning, have you asked what more you could be doing at home? Or the actual cost for smaller class sizes? Public servants' perspective coming soon.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the TAXES!!!
1. Flat 10%, no deductions for all incomes.
2. Federal sales tax of 10% on purchases other than food, clothes, home, utilities.
3. Health insurance companies go non-profit, and policies available to everyone outside of their job. All premiums for non-preventable illnesses the same for everyone. Premiums for smokers and obese paid by smokers and obese.
4. Public option health insurance available- like school and security, but not mandatory over the age of 18. BUT, if you don't at least sign up for insurance or have cash, you will not receive medical treatment. Since that was your choice. Any minor needing treatment will be signed up for a public option at the medical services site. Doctor can choose to call for social services assessment, like now.
5. Repeal NAFTA or find some other way to bring back manufacturing jobs.
6. Country-wide wind and solar energy grid, invested by utility companies with SBA or municipal bond funds. Gradual, but quick, elimination of foreign oil in America. OK, drill in American waters for oil to be used in AMERICA.
7. Downsize the IRS. They suck.
8. Document illegals and tax them. Allow them to sign a minimum-wage waiver. Severly fine employers who hire illegal workers to avoid paying taxes and acceptable American wages.
9. INCREASE the variety of classes available to public high school students. The damn national standards have narrowed the subject standards and tried to homogenize everyone. There are currently 8 recognized forms of intelligence, teach to them ALL.
2. Federal sales tax of 10% on purchases other than food, clothes, home, utilities.
3. Health insurance companies go non-profit, and policies available to everyone outside of their job. All premiums for non-preventable illnesses the same for everyone. Premiums for smokers and obese paid by smokers and obese.
4. Public option health insurance available- like school and security, but not mandatory over the age of 18. BUT, if you don't at least sign up for insurance or have cash, you will not receive medical treatment. Since that was your choice. Any minor needing treatment will be signed up for a public option at the medical services site. Doctor can choose to call for social services assessment, like now.
5. Repeal NAFTA or find some other way to bring back manufacturing jobs.
6. Country-wide wind and solar energy grid, invested by utility companies with SBA or municipal bond funds. Gradual, but quick, elimination of foreign oil in America. OK, drill in American waters for oil to be used in AMERICA.
7. Downsize the IRS. They suck.
8. Document illegals and tax them. Allow them to sign a minimum-wage waiver. Severly fine employers who hire illegal workers to avoid paying taxes and acceptable American wages.
9. INCREASE the variety of classes available to public high school students. The damn national standards have narrowed the subject standards and tried to homogenize everyone. There are currently 8 recognized forms of intelligence, teach to them ALL.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Debt
Debt is dumb. Not to sound overly preachy, but I can not describe how liberating it feels to have shredded my credit cards 5 weeks ago. I had always been attached to them, they were my crutch and my sprain at the same time-- sounds familiar, huh? Kinda like addiction...can't live with it, blah blah blah.
The cutting of the cards came about at the close of an episode of Suze Orman which happens to be the start time of a show called, "Til Debt Do Us Part." Now I watch them both every week, probably to feel as if yes there are folks worse off than we, so after Suze I knew what was coming. Out of the clear blue sky I got up, went upstairs where I had hidden all 6 cards from myself and proceeded to destroy.
(Hint to all: I cut each card into 4 sections- first name, last name, security code on the back, and half of the card number. I threw away each section in a different place- Home, work, store, friend's place.)
Let me just try to say how STUPID I feel for waiting so long. The crap I was spending credit on- I don't even miss and can't even really name. Restaurants mostly. And since none of them had really reached a zero balance until this year, I suppose I have been paying interest on food I've eaten since 2000! Today, some of that food is still with me but most of it has been in the sewer for a very long time. Talk about waste!!
So anyway, what is my point? My point is that if I can do it, so can the government. Should we tax the rich? Should we spend less on government programs? Should we incentivise saving and limit borrowing? Well, all of the above of course.
Look, Republicans want to keep rich taxes low and cut spending. Democrats want to raise rich taxes a little and 'reform' entitlements.
DO BOTH. For now, raise rich taxes halfway and put a limit on entitlements. End tax breaks on mortgage interest. People who want to own a home will buy their home regardless of deductions. To balance the loss of deduction (except for grandfathered present mortgages), quit taxing our savings interest! Geez- I only get 1 stinking % per year, leave it alone. You may find more money in banks, less money in McMansions, and voila- less bailout urgency as a bonus.
What about me? I am a landlord. I would pay more if the mortgage interest deduction were discontinued. Now please refer to past post where I said we should cut income tax to a flat, deduction-free 10% anyway, and begin a 10% federal sales tax [on everything but survival needs- food, clothing, primary residence].
Just amend the idea to exclude taxing savings gains. (BTW, capital gains should also be 10%.)
Anyway, now that I personally feel nearly euphoric every time I pay off a card, and get giddy when checking the steadily decreasing balances, I advise Washington to do the same. Spread the Joy! Get rid of your credit cards!! Will you have to reduce spending? Yup. Start with congressional and IRS salaries. Identify, document, and tax illegal immigrants. More on that next time... Peace.
The cutting of the cards came about at the close of an episode of Suze Orman which happens to be the start time of a show called, "Til Debt Do Us Part." Now I watch them both every week, probably to feel as if yes there are folks worse off than we, so after Suze I knew what was coming. Out of the clear blue sky I got up, went upstairs where I had hidden all 6 cards from myself and proceeded to destroy.
(Hint to all: I cut each card into 4 sections- first name, last name, security code on the back, and half of the card number. I threw away each section in a different place- Home, work, store, friend's place.)
Let me just try to say how STUPID I feel for waiting so long. The crap I was spending credit on- I don't even miss and can't even really name. Restaurants mostly. And since none of them had really reached a zero balance until this year, I suppose I have been paying interest on food I've eaten since 2000! Today, some of that food is still with me but most of it has been in the sewer for a very long time. Talk about waste!!
So anyway, what is my point? My point is that if I can do it, so can the government. Should we tax the rich? Should we spend less on government programs? Should we incentivise saving and limit borrowing? Well, all of the above of course.
Look, Republicans want to keep rich taxes low and cut spending. Democrats want to raise rich taxes a little and 'reform' entitlements.
DO BOTH. For now, raise rich taxes halfway and put a limit on entitlements. End tax breaks on mortgage interest. People who want to own a home will buy their home regardless of deductions. To balance the loss of deduction (except for grandfathered present mortgages), quit taxing our savings interest! Geez- I only get 1 stinking % per year, leave it alone. You may find more money in banks, less money in McMansions, and voila- less bailout urgency as a bonus.
What about me? I am a landlord. I would pay more if the mortgage interest deduction were discontinued. Now please refer to past post where I said we should cut income tax to a flat, deduction-free 10% anyway, and begin a 10% federal sales tax [on everything but survival needs- food, clothing, primary residence].
Just amend the idea to exclude taxing savings gains. (BTW, capital gains should also be 10%.)
Anyway, now that I personally feel nearly euphoric every time I pay off a card, and get giddy when checking the steadily decreasing balances, I advise Washington to do the same. Spread the Joy! Get rid of your credit cards!! Will you have to reduce spending? Yup. Start with congressional and IRS salaries. Identify, document, and tax illegal immigrants. More on that next time... Peace.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Big Babies!
The soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts: there is no argument that the middle class income-earners will not see an increase when the Bush tax rates expire. The hullabaloo is over the idea of whether those earning over $250,000 per year should soon be required to pay 39% in federal taxes rather than the current 36% implemented under W.
Before I reveal the ridiculously simple solution, I'll make both arguments.
Dems: "We have to recoup the national debt- and middle class families should not be the ones to have to do it because it was the middle class who was hit so hard by the Great Recession which began during the Bush administration."
Reps: " There should be no increase in taxes for any income bracket during an economic downturn because the more money people have, the more they will spend. And, if employers have to pay more taxes, they will not be able to create jobs."
Dems: "The rich have had the 36% rate for years. Where are the jobs? If middle class workers are confident that our national economy is getting on track by reduction of the deficit, they will be confident to spend, and businesses with more customer traffic will hire more help."
Tea Party: "Obama is a communist. There shouldn't be any taxes for anyone."
Pragmaticlanders: "The right wants 36%, the left wants 39%, GO TO 37.5%!!!!!!!!!!!! Man, you people are STUPID!!"
Have a Great Day.
Before I reveal the ridiculously simple solution, I'll make both arguments.
Dems: "We have to recoup the national debt- and middle class families should not be the ones to have to do it because it was the middle class who was hit so hard by the Great Recession which began during the Bush administration."
Reps: " There should be no increase in taxes for any income bracket during an economic downturn because the more money people have, the more they will spend. And, if employers have to pay more taxes, they will not be able to create jobs."
Dems: "The rich have had the 36% rate for years. Where are the jobs? If middle class workers are confident that our national economy is getting on track by reduction of the deficit, they will be confident to spend, and businesses with more customer traffic will hire more help."
Tea Party: "Obama is a communist. There shouldn't be any taxes for anyone."
Pragmaticlanders: "The right wants 36%, the left wants 39%, GO TO 37.5%!!!!!!!!!!!! Man, you people are STUPID!!"
Have a Great Day.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
One Would Think...
A friend told me about a blog by a feminist named Jill. Jill recently wrote about a law in UAE condoning domestic violence as a means of protecting the family and keeping a wife under control if abstaining from sex with her didn't straighten her out. No, seriously.
In America, some jurisdictions do not charge batterers if the victim of domestic violence refuses to press charges. Within the past few years, my own city changed that law. Police who are called out for DV can now press the charges and arrest the perp.
Why, you might ask, would any victim refuse to press charges against the person on whom they just had to call out the cops? Fear. They do need [usually] him to quit and calm down and can not make that happen alone. But if [usually] she were to have him arrested, we all know what he would do when his buddies or his boss or his mama bails him out. So, the only recourse many victims have legally is to run.
Battering is a sickness. They mean it every time they apologize. Still no excuse. Does it make sense that a victim and her children should be forced into fear and hiding because there is not enough legal protection available for them? In the United States of America, doesn't physical safety count as an inalienable right? Even if you did sign up to live with the person? Here is my solemn promise-- no person lives with a violent batterer because they enjoy receiving beatings. There is NO place for blaming the victim in a domestic violence situation.
While I can't exactly call this solution a compromise, because I don't know of any reasonable person who wants to protect someone's right to murder the heart and soul of his family, it is a pretty fair and reasonable solution.
On second thought, perhaps this is a compromise between those who would condone capital punishment for batterers and those whose hearts bleed all over the batterer's dysfunctional childhood. (Admittedly, that very conflict exists within my own self.) Or possibly a compromise between the human-protective and the budget-conscious...
If a DV call is made, and the responding officers see an obvious victim, and are given a verbal statement, they should be required to remove the perp. Let him cool his heels in the drunk tank, because the odds are good he will be chemically altered in some way. The state or county will bring charges of battery.
So, to keep people safe, the one delivering the abuse must be compelled to vacate the premises. He may pack his clothes and toys, but no furnishings. Upon a guilty verdict, he relinquishes his legal right to any community property.
Where does he go while waiting for trial? To a therapeutic facility. He probably can't help being an asshole. Schedule his trial for 1 year after his arrest, giving him a full year to learn techniques for keeping his hands to himself and possibly address an addiction. He should also keep his job and send 75% of his pay back to the family. This way, even if he is acquitted, he still received the therapy and did not have to lose his livelihood. The victims will have a safe year to get it together and relocate should they choose.
What if she makes it up you ask? Remember I said obvious victim. Blood, bruises, defensive wounds, fear, distress from her...addiction, anger, cut up knuckles, etc from him.
So now the Republicans want to know who is to pay for the protection of citizens? Why tax payers, that's who. That is precisely what tax money is for. Cut the prison budget, reallocate that money to rehabilitation. Many batterers had the example set for them, and it is imperative that the same example NOT be set for his children. Removing the abusive person from the home will eventually reduce the violent prison population when the next generation does not follow in certain footsteps.
Now to address the issue of drug-related abuse. Apparently the fact that drug use is illegal is not sufficient to protect people. So, every drug-affected baby should be immediately and permanently removed from the addicted mother. Of course there will be exceptions made for mothers using prescribed drugs which her doctor said would be OK; I am talking about crack, heroin, alcohol, etc.
Those babies should be eligible for adoption without delay, to enable healthy emotional bonding, by sober, responsible people, and should be eligible for medical and psychiatric assistance as well as case worker monitoring. Pay social workers like we pay disrict attorneys. Don't cry for the rights of the biological mother. Once she chose to keep the baby and continue the pregnancy, that construes her promise to take care of the fetus and child. Using harmful drugs, hurting the child makes her unfit.
How will taking away a crack baby solve domestic violence? The child will not be raised in an addictive dangerous environment where his mother is possibly trading favors for drugs, associating with bad people, and abandoning the child emotionally and quite possibly physically. If she can't stop using while pregnant, she will use after the birth. This attracts bad men, and bad men do bad things to children.
So to wrap up- remove the perp, give him therapy, allow him to work (with an ankle monitor), have him send money home (if he really is as sorry as he always claims to be he won't mind helping support his family). If the family moves, the money is sent through the court and the perp does not get to know where they are. Advise them to use fake names online and avoid posting pictures! He gets charged by the state regardless of whether the victim is too afraid. If convicted, he does time in minimum security (because he is not likely to pick fights with men his own size). If acquitted, he has received a year of therapy.
She would have to be really stupid to take him back. If she does, and he starts his crap again, he goes to jail for a LONG time, and works hard labor to repay the state. The state can sub out cheap labor to private contractors. Minimum wage. Every penny of his 90% net goes back into the system.
What do you think? Safety with compassion? Punishment when appropriate? Consideration for future generations? Protection of the innocent?
In America, some jurisdictions do not charge batterers if the victim of domestic violence refuses to press charges. Within the past few years, my own city changed that law. Police who are called out for DV can now press the charges and arrest the perp.
Why, you might ask, would any victim refuse to press charges against the person on whom they just had to call out the cops? Fear. They do need [usually] him to quit and calm down and can not make that happen alone. But if [usually] she were to have him arrested, we all know what he would do when his buddies or his boss or his mama bails him out. So, the only recourse many victims have legally is to run.
Battering is a sickness. They mean it every time they apologize. Still no excuse. Does it make sense that a victim and her children should be forced into fear and hiding because there is not enough legal protection available for them? In the United States of America, doesn't physical safety count as an inalienable right? Even if you did sign up to live with the person? Here is my solemn promise-- no person lives with a violent batterer because they enjoy receiving beatings. There is NO place for blaming the victim in a domestic violence situation.
While I can't exactly call this solution a compromise, because I don't know of any reasonable person who wants to protect someone's right to murder the heart and soul of his family, it is a pretty fair and reasonable solution.
On second thought, perhaps this is a compromise between those who would condone capital punishment for batterers and those whose hearts bleed all over the batterer's dysfunctional childhood. (Admittedly, that very conflict exists within my own self.) Or possibly a compromise between the human-protective and the budget-conscious...
If a DV call is made, and the responding officers see an obvious victim, and are given a verbal statement, they should be required to remove the perp. Let him cool his heels in the drunk tank, because the odds are good he will be chemically altered in some way. The state or county will bring charges of battery.
So, to keep people safe, the one delivering the abuse must be compelled to vacate the premises. He may pack his clothes and toys, but no furnishings. Upon a guilty verdict, he relinquishes his legal right to any community property.
Where does he go while waiting for trial? To a therapeutic facility. He probably can't help being an asshole. Schedule his trial for 1 year after his arrest, giving him a full year to learn techniques for keeping his hands to himself and possibly address an addiction. He should also keep his job and send 75% of his pay back to the family. This way, even if he is acquitted, he still received the therapy and did not have to lose his livelihood. The victims will have a safe year to get it together and relocate should they choose.
What if she makes it up you ask? Remember I said obvious victim. Blood, bruises, defensive wounds, fear, distress from her...addiction, anger, cut up knuckles, etc from him.
So now the Republicans want to know who is to pay for the protection of citizens? Why tax payers, that's who. That is precisely what tax money is for. Cut the prison budget, reallocate that money to rehabilitation. Many batterers had the example set for them, and it is imperative that the same example NOT be set for his children. Removing the abusive person from the home will eventually reduce the violent prison population when the next generation does not follow in certain footsteps.
Now to address the issue of drug-related abuse. Apparently the fact that drug use is illegal is not sufficient to protect people. So, every drug-affected baby should be immediately and permanently removed from the addicted mother. Of course there will be exceptions made for mothers using prescribed drugs which her doctor said would be OK; I am talking about crack, heroin, alcohol, etc.
Those babies should be eligible for adoption without delay, to enable healthy emotional bonding, by sober, responsible people, and should be eligible for medical and psychiatric assistance as well as case worker monitoring. Pay social workers like we pay disrict attorneys. Don't cry for the rights of the biological mother. Once she chose to keep the baby and continue the pregnancy, that construes her promise to take care of the fetus and child. Using harmful drugs, hurting the child makes her unfit.
How will taking away a crack baby solve domestic violence? The child will not be raised in an addictive dangerous environment where his mother is possibly trading favors for drugs, associating with bad people, and abandoning the child emotionally and quite possibly physically. If she can't stop using while pregnant, she will use after the birth. This attracts bad men, and bad men do bad things to children.
So to wrap up- remove the perp, give him therapy, allow him to work (with an ankle monitor), have him send money home (if he really is as sorry as he always claims to be he won't mind helping support his family). If the family moves, the money is sent through the court and the perp does not get to know where they are. Advise them to use fake names online and avoid posting pictures! He gets charged by the state regardless of whether the victim is too afraid. If convicted, he does time in minimum security (because he is not likely to pick fights with men his own size). If acquitted, he has received a year of therapy.
She would have to be really stupid to take him back. If she does, and he starts his crap again, he goes to jail for a LONG time, and works hard labor to repay the state. The state can sub out cheap labor to private contractors. Minimum wage. Every penny of his 90% net goes back into the system.
What do you think? Safety with compassion? Punishment when appropriate? Consideration for future generations? Protection of the innocent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)