Six Ways America is Like a Third-World Country

[BotanyBoy]

we seem to learn nothing ever about the value of trains.

I haz been to ze Deutschland ya......it Vas Wunderbar for certain, esp the beer selection.

With the roads we have in most parts of the country cars are usually a good deal faster and by a margin enough to justify the extra cost of fuel over a ticket. The absolute fastest/cheapest way to travel cross country is by plane. Like in the bay area we have the BART and CalTrain. I could drive a mile down to the station, make my way through the cluster fuck parking and spend 90 min and a few bucks on a train to get to town. Or I can get in my car and tear ass....be there in 30 min, listen to uber metal, fart etc. and just pay for the instant gratifacation of slamming my shit 3 feet from the front door of my office and having a ride when I get done with all the doing for the day.

So trains get made into freight carriers which is what they do best B)

Until trains become cheaper and faster commuter option, no one gives a fuck.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ike destroyed the rails and a lot of Middle American towns with the introduction of I-70...



... which for some bizarre reason now has signs proclaiming it the Submariner's Highway...


... in the middle of fucking KANSAS!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Anyone can make a mistake.

For the UK I offer:

The Austin Allegro with a square steering wheel:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2596/4001470983_5d8e912042_b.jpg

It's not just square, it's on the wrong side!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Who is also the author of Marx Was Right: 5 Correct Predictions About Modern Capitalism. Just sayin... http://s10.postimg.org/s0rjilln9/60_52014.gif

[clicks] Hmmm . . . Thanks for the link. Dunno about Marx himself, but McElwee appears to be right on every point.

 

[oggbashan]

It's not just square, it's on the wrong side!

That's what was wrong about the Pacer when it was introduced in right-hand drive form. The larger door was on the wrong side.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Right, so according to the article, the things politicians have been responsible for, for the last 50 years, suck.

They conveniently left that part out of the article.

 

[julybaby04]

If there is a problem with so many people in jail and people are upset about it, I have an idea.......stop breaking the law.....that should help.

 

[bronzeage]

If there is a problem with so many people in jail and people are upset about it, I have an idea.......stop breaking the law.....that should help.

If the threat of prison is not enough to stop someone from breaking the law, do we continue to build more prisons and hope that more prisons is the solution?

When we ask for more money for prisons, will you give cheerfully?

 

[subdued_passion]

From Rolling Stone:

1. Criminal Justice

We all know the U.S. criminal justice system is flawed, but few are likely aware of just how bad it is compared to the rest of the world. The International Center for Prison Studies estimates that America imprisons 716 people per 100,000 citizens (of any age). That's significantly worse than Russia (484 prisoners per 100,000 citizens), China (121) and Iran (284). The only country that incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than we do is North Korea. The U.S. is also the only developed country that executes prisoners – and our death penalty has a serious race problem: 42 percent of those on death row are black, compared to less than 15 percent of the overall population.

Over two and a half million American children have a parent behind bars. A whopping 60 percent of those incarcerated in U.S. prisons are non-violent offenders, many of them in prison for drug charges (overwhelmingly African-Americans). Even while our crime rate has fallen, our incarcerated population has climbed. As of 2011, an estimated 217,000 American prisoners were raped each year *– that's 600 new victims every day, a truly horrifying number. In 2010, the Department of Justice released a report about abuse in juvenile detention centers. The report found that 12.1 percent of all youth held in juvenile detention reported sexual violence; youth held for between seven and 12 months had a victimization rate of 14.2 percent.

*shudder* Those numbers paint a scary picture. Seems like the system isn't helping to rehabilitate but may be helping produce future criminals. After all how many of those sexual violence victims will think kindly towards the system that left them vulnerable in that manner.

 

[julybaby04]

If the threat of prison is not enough to stop someone from breaking the law, do we continue to build more prisons and hope that more prisons is the solution?

When we ask for more money for prisons, will you give cheerfully?

I believe paying for more prisons comes out of tax dollars which NO ONE cheerfully gives.

But, if people refuse to live within the laws of the society and choose to break them, then perhaps more prisons will be the answer.

There are millions of people who live their lives without breaking the laws.....if some can do it, all should be able to do it. It is about choices.....as most everything in life is.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I believe paying for more prisons comes out of tax dollars which NO ONE cheerfully gives.

But, if people refuse to live within the laws of the society and choose to break them, then perhaps more prisons will be the answer.

There are millions of people who live their lives without breaking the laws.....if some can do it, all should be able to do it. It is about choices.....as most everything in life is.

Why not change the laws, the same ways we've done thousands of times over the years to better suit society.

Now the real answer (Not you'res, you're a lot of things but I've accused of a racism don't intend to start now.) is that White America found a way to keep those uppity negros down. When a similiar law was passed, prohibition, it took all of a decade to do the near impossible and change the US Constitution. When it happened to blacks and browns. . .well decades passed, prisons filled and nobody would stand up because blacks n browns is natural criminals.

But seriously, why not do the samething as we did with Prohibition?

 

[subdued_passion]

I believe paying for more prisons comes out of tax dollars which NO ONE cheerfully gives.

But, if people refuse to live within the laws of the society and choose to break them, then perhaps more prisons will be the answer.

There are millions of people who live their lives without breaking the laws.....if some can do it, all should be able to do it. It is about choices.....as most everything in life is.

In your opinion, what purpose do prisons serve? How do you feel society is served by incarcerating a section of its populace?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Of course incarceration serves a purpose. Not every pothead should do time, but there are plenty of people who need to get off the streets.

 

[StrangeLife]

I don't know about how it works in other countries but in Sweden it's not paid by business owners. It's a tax financed benefit like any other.

Only thing the employer is mandated to do is not permanently replace the mother (or father, we have shared parental leave), but instead hire a temp until she's back.

Oh ok - I wasn't aware that the state is picking up the tab. In that case I suppose it ain't as unfair to the employer as I initially assumed.


Still - getting paid by anybody not directly involved for having unprotected sex does sound kinda crazy...

 

[bronzeage]

I believe paying for more prisons comes out of tax dollars which NO ONE cheerfully gives.

But, if people refuse to live within the laws of the society and choose to break them, then perhaps more prisons will be the answer.

There are millions of people who live their lives without breaking the laws.....if some can do it, all should be able to do it. It is about choices.....as most everything in life is.

If I understand you, your choice is to put people in cages because they have made bad choices, and you choose to pay for their food, clothes, and their cage.

Are these people irredeemable, or worse, were they destined for prison?

 

[subdued_passion]

Still - getting paid by anybody not directly involved for having unprotected sex does sound kinda crazy...

In the bigger picture, what is our purpose? As a species, what is it we're supposed to do?

In the evolutionary context maternity benefits makes complete sense to me.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In your opinion, what purpose do prisons serve? How do you feel society is served by incarcerating a section of its populace?

The purpose of incarceration is incarceration. It might not rehabilitate anybody, but it takes persons who have proven themselves dangerous, takes them out of circulation for a time, and puts them where they can only harm other criminals. That's why the crime rate has gone down in the past couple of decades, harsher and stricter and longer-term sentencing -- but I'm wondering whether we're paying too high a price for a low crime rate.

 

[Felix_Jones]

The purpose of incarceration is incarceration. It might not rehabilitate anybody, but it takes persons who have proven themselves dangerous, takes them out of circulation for a time, and puts them where they can only harm other criminals. That's why the crime rate has gone down in the past couple of decades, harsher and stricter and longer-term sentencing -- but I'm wondering whether we're paying too high a price for a low crime rate.

Okay, then why do countries with much lower incarceration rates than the US have much, much lower crime rates?
And like the article said, 60% of incarcerated criminals are, by definition, not dangerous.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Smarter Laws. Either that or Americans are uniquely evil. Take your pick.

 

[subdued_passion]

The purpose of incarceration is incarceration. It might not rehabilitate anybody, but it takes persons who have proven themselves dangerous, takes them out of circulation for a time, and puts them where they can only harm other criminals. That's why the crime rate has gone down in the past couple of decades, harsher and stricter and longer-term sentencing -- but I'm wondering whether we're paying too high a price for a low crime rate.

Does taking the criminal out of society take criminal intent from the person?

I understand that the fear of imprisonment works as a deterrent to crime. But if your prisons are that full, it's either not that much of a deterrent or perhaps there are far greater motivations to commit a crime.



If you looked at the whole thing from a business perspective and thought of a criminal as an employee who does not meet the required standards of performance. Would you keep suspending him with paid leave hoping he will return to work as a better employee?

 

[StrangeLife]

In the bigger picture, what is our purpose? As a species, what is it we're supposed to do?

In the evolutionary context maternity benefits makes complete sense to me.

In an evolutionary context, perhaps. Technically any incentive to breed is advantageous.

But why would society want to pay for it? We're not exactly short on people these days. Besides there are no statistics showing any indication that people have less sex in areas without regulatory mandated maternity leave...

 

[subdued_passion]

In an evolutionary context, perhaps. Technically any incentive to breed is advantageous.

But why would society want to pay for it? We're not exactly short on people these days. Besides there are no statistics showing any indication that people have less sex in areas without regulatory mandated maternity leave...

It's not just to breed, to preserve the species. It is why monogamy became a thing. The father stuck around to protect the mother of his child and to provide her food when she wouldn't be able to obtain it herself, close to term and at her most vulnerable.

The maternity benefits can be seen as a poor substitute for just that.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

If the threat of prison is not enough to stop someone from breaking the law, do we continue to build more prisons and hope that more prisons is the solution?

When we ask for more money for prisons, will you give cheerfully?

That's actually a myopic position. If the threat of prosecution isn't enough to stop you from committing a crime, we need to look at the culture that you're from and why/how it's teaching you to not fear prosecution or that committing the crimes is acceptable in the first place.

And we need to stop looking at America as a culture as a whole and focus on the micro-climates in certain sectors that foster such beliefs.

Would you have us simply stop prosecuting crimes? Stop incarcerating criminals? Make things legal?

Let's look at petty theft, for example. It's illegal because it removes a person's rightful property against their will. Do we make that action okay? Do we stop putting thieves behind bars?

Or, do we look at what type of life you come from that would teach you that such action is acceptable? Obviously there are millions of Americans that don't need to steal, or don't think stealing is acceptable, so why do you, the criminal? What about your upbringing caused this? What about your education or social structure taught this?

Only by addressing the root causes can we fix the problem. Prisons are like a bandage: they absorb the flow of blood, but they do not repair the cut blood vessel. Until you repair the cut, the bleeding will continue. If you refuse to fix the cut, you must continue to add bandages to absorb the continuing flow of blood.

 

[julybaby04]

In your opinion, what purpose do prisons serve? How do you feel society is served by incarcerating a section of its populace?

As a child, I was taught to obey rules....whether they were rules from my parents, schools, city, county, state, etc. I did my best to do that. If I was speeding (happened once in my life,) I got a ticket and paid for my mistake. I knew the rules, what was expected of me and what happens when I do not follow them.

Prinsons are in place for those people who know the rules and choose to break them. My traffic ticket was my punishment. If someone kills another human being, the punishment should be more. If someone continually commits crimes, they deserve to be punished as well.

Being law abiding citizens has ZERO to do with skin color. There are millions of people (all colors) who do not break the law. There are those who choose to break the law (regardless of skin color). When someone chooses to break the law, that person does not deserve to be with those who choose to abide by the laws.

This is not a race issue. This is a law abiding issue.

 

[StrangeLife]

It's not just to breed, to preserve the species. It is why monogamy became a thing. The father stuck around to protect the mother of his child and to provide her food when she wouldn't be able to obtain it herself, close to term and at her most vulnerable.

The maternity benefits can be seen as a poor substitute for just that.

That's a very weak justification, considering the costs on a federal scale. Especially since it's not in the best interest of society to support women getting pregnant and thus disappearing from the work-force for maybe a year or more.

It might be my American mindset, but I'm still not getting it. At least guys ought to get paid for having sex too... in the name of equal opportunity...