The UN is not trying to tell anyone how to raise their kids.
Posted By: There is nothing to fear on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Perhaps your time would be better spent reading the - details of ...........sm
in the idea of addressing global poverty. BTW, you need to do a little boning up yourself on the purpose of the United Nations, what it is, how it works and who benefits before expecting anybody anywhere to engage you in any serious debate on this subject. You have been spending way too much time hanging with the fringe. Trust me on this. There is life after fringe.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Raise the cap for SS deductions.
.
He will raise taxes for us all.
No way to set up these government programs of his without taking money from all of us.
He HAS to raise taxes, no way around it
All those programs will not appear out of thin air. He will grow government bigger than ever...new departments, more employees for those departments, more of my tax money blown to heck and back. People actually believe ALL this can be done with TAX CUTS!! They are in total denial.
This man have voted REPEATEDLY to NOT NOT NOT cut taxes every darn time it has come up and has pushed for tax INCREASES. For those nonbelievers, all they gotta do is go look at his voting record. It's there for the scrutinizing.
Read his lips.....
He knows people are running scared and he can zoom in and steal their good sense with telling them he will cut taxes. BUT, as soon as he is in office, it won't happen and who will he blame then? Everybody but himself!!! He will not take any responsiblity for that either.
That is exactly what he said. He wants to raise taxes...
on those making $250,000 or more so he can give a check to lower income folks...and a modest tax cut (while letting the Bush tax cuts expire) to the middle class. Have you looked at what we are going to lose if he lets those tax cuts expire? A whole lot more than his little tax cut will make up. He also needs the added taxation to try to help pay for all he wants to do...
The checks he is going to dole out are NOT for everyone. And they will even go to people who pay NO taxes.
THAT is rewarding laziness. That is NOT trying to help people better themselves. Would it not be better to get them a JOB than a one-time gimme check??
because they did not raise him and shape him into what he is -
nm
Does this mean Sarah gets another raise?...LOL
*Unlike President George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the two bills when they came up in the last session of Congress, President-elect Barack Obama has embraced them.*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_co/pay_equity
I can't wait to see who all opposes this bill. I hope they plaster them all over the news.
Obama has said repeatedly he will RAISE
xx
F: Obama is going to raise MY taxes...
DH and I don't work hard to give to those who can't/don't/won't.
YES HE DID VOTE TO RAISE YOUR TAXES
@
it doesn't take a union to get a pay raise
puhleez lighten up. I do not and will not support unions. At first unions were good. then they got too large and too powerful, corrupt and greedy, and unions were no longer a good thing. They stopped working for the people they were supposed to represent and started working for the benefit of the union itself. My father worked for a company where he had to be in the union. That union wanted more and more of the company (as they always did). Even though many, many of the employees voted against strike, some people did, and the union declared the strike and people walked off their jobs. My dad wanted to work; he was physically assaulted and our car destroyed when he tried to work. Don't call my father a "scab." He was a fine man raising three kids and wanting to work at his own job, which he loved and was proud of. Period. The strike lasted a long time, and the company finally closed its doors when the union would not concede to anything. All of the employees lost their jobs whether they were union supporters or not because of the actions of that union. Now that's why I don't like unions and never will. There used to be a large manufacturing sector here in the midwest. Unions destroyed much of it. They just keep demanding more and more, and many companies simply closed, thus placing 1000s on unemployment. And do you honestly think corruption in the union is okay as long as "he also benefitted American workers?" I never belonged to a union as an MT for 30'some years, and do you think I never got a raise? The hospitals and companies I worked for always paid well and we didn't need a union to do it for us. Actually, I think fear of unions was one of the reasons why. But let's not forget this, union membership is often mandatory so people who work for the organization are forced to be members whether they want to or not. That right there is just wrong. People outside of the union are denied the right to work in many areas. So don't tell me what to "b**ch about." The two items are no mutually inclusive. One can say that their pay has fallen behind and still not want a union involved. Have a little respect for opinions other than yours.
Congress gets a raise - must be nice!
Kudos to Harry Mitchell and the other 34 who at least tried.
From TheHill.com
12/17/08
A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.
“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”
However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.
Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.
“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”
Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.
Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.
“They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said.
Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill.
Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.
In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.
In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.
Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.
Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.
“It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress’s salary,” he said. “I don’t think you’re going to find taxpayers saying, ‘Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more’.”
Problem is, the taxes Obama does raise
nm
Yeah, and now put Obama in there to raise taxes
nm
Bottom line....O will raise DH and my taxes, sorry, it's not for
those who are lazy. Try working hard for a change and not expecting the gov't to give you a handout for once. WAAAH, please pay for my healthcare, pay for my kid's college, help me out because I don't want to take responibility for myself, I would rather let the gov't do it all and then when it doesn;t work out, I can blame them too. When O wins I can't wait to see this board in a year with all the people complaining about the broken promises, higher taxes, etc. It will be worth the wait.
Why do you think that Hillary and McCain did not raise the B/C issue?
Do you think maybe it is because there was no merit to it and everyone knew it? The people who were most directly affected by it are not saying anything about it - the other presidential candidates...
So, honest opinion, why are they not whooping and hollering?
pays her own kids way? I think that Alaska pays her kids way! nm
x
She cannot possibly raise that child and utilize her master's, though,
Certainly you'd never encourage your daughter to spend time working on a MASTER'S while trying to also raise a child!! You've just bashed another mother for doing something similar, so I don't get it. Or is okay if you only have ONE child or what? Please fill me in on the double standard you uphold.
What the chart shows is that Obama is going to raise taxes on the people....
who employ the people in the other brackets. Trickle down will not be beneficial. What is wrong with giving the middle class a break? They are already supporting most of the lower class anyway. THe lower class already pay next to nothing in taxes. Oh I forgot...economic parity, redistribution of wealth....good old Marxist values.
Roland Burris aknowledes trying to raise money for Blago
He claimed there was nothing going on but he just dropped the bombshell as O was speaking stating he can recall 6 different contacts and is now under investigation.
Guess he's gonna be gone. He may have committed perjury.
His Kids
I know the "C" story is true. As far as the kids go, he has 7 from what I understand. Two boys in the military and 1 or 2 adopted kids. I stated an opinion about his daughters because any man that would disrespect women the way he has (letting "H" be called the "B" word, laughing and not speaking against it, and then calling his wife a "C" publically), has no respect for women (which include his daughters). Then he comes out with this fake persona that he respects women and he welcomes their vote. Please --- anything to win.
We really would not have know about the kids other than
Palin herself putting them before the public like she did, kept the smaller 1 out of school and people questioned as to why they were not in school. Oh, now it is ne're-do-well beau. I remember what a warm reception he got from John welcoming him into the circle. All white trash, both sides.
Now really, kids!!
I think a lot of it has to do with the attempt to incite violence. While Olberman, Maddow, and the MSNBC crew may be left of center, they don't incite violence. Nor do I think Hannity falls into that category, either. Rush, Rev. Phelps, and Michael Savage are names that immediately pop into my head on the conservative end that seem to like to stir up crap. On the other side, I really wish we could find a way to export Sharpton, but I doubt any other country wants him anymore than I do.
Of course, WE are the country that denied Cat Stevens entrance, too, so I guess we can't get too holier than thou about Britain's keeping out the rabble rousers.
Kids - this is funny.
When Vífill Atlason, a 16-year-old high school student from Iceland, decided to call the White House, he could not imagine the kind of publicity it would bring.
Introducing himself as Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, the actual president of Iceland, Atlason found President George W. Bush's allegedly secret telephone number and phoned, requesting a private meeting with him.
"I just wanted to talk to him, have a chat, invite him to Iceland and see what he'd say," Vífill told ABC News.
A White House official, who asked not to be identified, denied the young man had accessed a private number but instead dialled 202-456-1414, the main switchboard for the West Wing.
Vífill's mother, Harpa Hreinsdottir, a teacher at the local high school, said her son did, in fact, get through to a private phone.
"This was not a switchboard number of any kind," she told ABC News, "it was a secret number at the highest security level."
Vífill claims he was passed on to several people, each of them quizzing him on President Grímsson's date of birth, where he grew up, who his parents were and the date he entered office.
"It was like passing through checkpoints," he said. "But I had Wikipedia and a few other sites open, so it was not so difficult really."
When he finally got through to President Bush's secretary, Vífill alleges he was told to expect a call back from Bush.
"She told me the president was not available at the time, but that she would mark it in his schedule to call me back on Monday evening," he said.
Instead, the police showed up at his home in Akranes, a fishing town about 48 kilometers from Reykjavik, and took him to the local police station, where they questioned the 16-year-old for several hours.
"The police chief said they were under orders from U.S. officials to "find the leak" -- that I had to tell them where I had found the number," he said. "Otherwise, I would be banned from ever entering the United States."
Vífill claims he cannot remember where he got the number.
"I just know I have had it for a few years," he told ABC. "I must have gotten it from a friend when I was about 11 or 12."
Atlason's mother Harpa, who was not home at the time, said she was shocked to find her son had been taken away by the police but could not quite bring herself to be angry with her son.
"He's very resourceful you know," she said. "He has become a bit of a hero in Iceland. Bush is very unpopular here."
Vífill was eventually released into his parent's custody, and no charges have been brought against the high school student.
When ABC verified the number, it was the Secret Service Uniform Division, which handles security for the president.
"If the number were not top secret, why would the police have told me that I will be put on a no-fly list to America?" Vífill asked.
"I don't see how calling the White House is a crime," he added. "But obviously, they took it very seriously."
Calls to the Secret Service press office were not returned.
Maybe the kind that has 3 kids
already and the 4th pregnancy could put her life in peril. Does she allow her other children to go motherless?
Maybe the kind who underwent extensive testing and was told that her child would be born limbless or so developmentally delayed that any kind of life would be miserable?
Maybe the kind who was raped and does not want to bear the child of a rapist, whether she would be able to put the child up for adoption or not.
A woman's body is her body. No one should have the right to tell her what to do with it. There are many reasons to have an abortion. I personally feel that in the above cases, an abortion is a reasonable option. I certainly wouldn't wish any of the scenarios above on anyone. Outlawing abortion in general is wrong. If you want to prevent it from being used as a form of birth control, then by all means put limitations on it, but don't outlaw it completely. Sometimes it is the only choice.
Not pro-abortion but definitely pro-choice. There is a difference.
THis is not about taking anything away from kids...they
still have access to birth control...health departments, planned parenthood, clinics, any number of places. It is common knowledge. You hear about it on television on a daily basis, and television, movies, and the internet are where most kids get their information. And frankly, listen to it much more closely than to their parents. Throwing more federal money into any kind of sex ed and/or abstinence programs to me is a waste of money. That was the original question, did I think federal funds should be used for sex ed and abstinence programs.
No, in this culture we live in today, to remove contraception would be idiotic. Sex has been reduced to "expression," having one partner for life has disappeared, multiple partners are fine, yada yada...in that kind of culture to remove birth control would be nuts. Think what the abortion rate would be if that was done...good grief.
By education and programs that doesn't mean dispensing actual birth control. At many schools kids can get condoms. Nearly every health department in the country will dispense birth control and any planned parenthood place will, and that is not going to change.
If you want to reach kids, put those programs on the internet or introduce that kind of information to the shows the kids watch all the time. If you want the information to get to them, that is where it should be covered.
almost 700 kids in 1 cemetary
http://www.careforkidsnow.com/index_files/news.htm
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/14-Mar-2007.html
But the conversation is about kids who are having
things done without the parents' knowledge.
If what kids see is what they think is normal
then where did the gay people come from, assuming they had both a father and a mother?
On another note, I would rather have been raised by Rosie O'Donnell and her partner than my dysfunctional parents. They are much more "normal" than either of my parents.
Why don't you let your kids decide for themselves
what they want to do. I'm glad I had responsible parents who taught me right from wrong, watched me grow, get married, but I also know that if I wanted to be gay they would love me still the same.
Unfortunately too many parents try to control every single aspect of their kids life, and the kids grow up as biggoted and unloving as their parents. Of course I'm not saying that is you, but you just see it too many times on TV.
Parents believe one thing, so they force their kids to believe the same thing, when all along the parents were pretty messed up.
You need to teach your kids on the different lifestyles people in America have and that's why it makes a great nation (or would you rather have the public floggings of gays like they do in the other countries because they don't share the same viewpoints as you). You need to teach your kids the different lifestyles and what it means as a lifestyle for them. Then let them make their own decisions as to what life they wish to choose for themselves.
You need to stop telling people to get a clue because you obviously don't have one.
Hey Kids! Run for President!
But if you screw up we will prosecute you and make sure you're labeled a criminal the rest of your life!!!
I hardly think that teaching kids...(sm)
how NOT to bash LGBTs is going to "force homosexuality upon your kids." Give me a break! They aren't teaching Peter how to kiss Paul. They're teaching Peter how not to beat up Paul. I think it's really sad that this actually has to be a lessen in school in the first place, and in grammar school at that --- not because of the LGBT issues being brought to light, but because of the parents who have obviously taught their kids that its okay to bash others who are different. How many times have you called an LGBT a bad name in front of your kids? Hmmm....
Lets take care of those kids already here
Some have such loud voices when trying to stop a woman from chosing what decisions to make about HER body but, yet, you hear nothing from these same people when it is shown there is so much child abuse, children living with drug and alcohol addicted parents, children living in poverty, not getting a good education, not getting the immunizations they need, not getting health care, on and on. Lets take care of those already on this earth..
I guess you can't think for yourself. I suppose the kids that just
got arrested for setting churches on fire were *indoctrinated* even though 2 of them are from a Methodist college? I guess it goes you show YOU fear *indoctriation* because you can't think for yourself.
It can end with affordable healthcare for kids.
I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy. We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc. I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.
Kids from families making as much as $83,000
Bush was lying about that, as the $83,000 income level limit was not a part of the bill that he vetoed. Also, Democrats already worked with Republicans and compromised quite a bit to come up with a bill that many in both parties agreed upon - too bad only one guy matters, huh? It's a sad day for many struggling middle-class families, but at least the issue has had a big spot light shined upon it - hopefully we can make some much-needed changes to make healthcare more affordable now. All kids deserve healthcare, regardless of how much money their parents make or don't make!!!
Here's a section of a New York Times Article that states that the $83,000 guideline was not a part of the bill that was just vetoed:
"This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
link to the entire article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
She has raised most all her kids while in some form...
of public service. I think she is fully capable of raising this one. I see no evidence to the contrary.
Come on now...are you saying that if the Obamas had a down's child and he was elected that Michelle should just stay in the white house and raise him and not do what the first ladies normally do? They travel, they give speeches, yada yada.
Palin's husband will be of help. It's not like she is going to be in DC, just she and Trig with no help whatsoever.
Yes, he is a down's baby, but he is perfectly healthy in every other way.
And where are your kids while you're online?
No mother can devote 24/7 to their child, Down or not. I know people with Down children and they work, also. There are wonderful programs to enroll children in, too, and believe me, those mothers NEED a break sometimes. I'm sorry, but I do not believe for one second that someone with children is not capable of a political career. Maybe her husband plans to be home with the children, ever think of that? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. A father is JUST as important in a child's life and development.
What about parents who don't discuss with their kids?
And so you know right off, I'm not a Barack fan nor McCain fan. However, my own personal beliefs aside, I believe "it takes a village to raise a child" and there are FAR too many parents NOT doing their jobs these days, which forces schools, governments, etc. to jump in to help. I see far too many parents who'd just as soon go to the bar than raise their child. There are parents who are apathetic, and there are parents who are embarrassed or ill-informed themselves to teach their kids sex ed. I don't think sex ed is a problem at all in school, so long as it's in the context of health education and not presented to students in a biased manner of some sort. It IS how mammals reproduce and therefore does have a place in education.
God gave us free will and if you try to control the free will of someone else, how is that right? I believe in consequences of free will when someone chooses wrong, which is why we have laws in place. I don't believe it's any one person's or party's place to tell another how to live their life, period.
Personally, I'd like to see more parents do their jobs at home so gov't and schools didn't have to do it for them (and all the rest of us too as a result), and sure, ideally I'd like to see more kids abstaining from sex altogether. But I'm also a realist and know that my beliefs and willpower aren't the same as everyone else's. That's what is supposed to be great about USA.
The reality is that not all kids have the willpower to abstain in the heat of the moment, no matter WHAT their upbringing or what wonderful parents they have. As you said, it's everywhere - on TV, movies, ads, games, you name it! It's in their face now more than ever, so to ignore it and act like it won't ever happen isn't the answer, either. No, I don't know what the answer is, either, but I don't think that's it.
Also, to take away any access to sex ed and/or birth control at all is in a sense forcing the ideals/morals of one group of people on another and basically taking the free will of the other group - how do you reconcile that? I'm being sincere, as this question plagues me often when considering these issues.
Nancy Pelosi has 5 kids....
maybe she should have aborted a couple? Geez.
Wow. What kind of world do we want for our kids?
You are a real piece of work. Are you a Christian?
I know plenty of kids in our schools who would
@
Obama's Web Site for Kids...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/thetalk
A website for kids unable to vote...
We need change - blind loyalty?????
When I saw the video of the kids singing....
and of those boys in fatigues doing their routine....it does remind you of the newsreel footage of the "Hitler youth." Not comparing Obama to Hitler, but the PHENOMENON of Obama. Hitler so mesmerized people he convinced them that Jews were the cause of all their problems...and the people bought it. Using the same old socialist techniques...you find the weakness, the thing that enrages people...and you put a face on it. With Obama it is class warfare. With Hitler it was warfare against Jews. The similarities ARE eery. And it is NOT comparing Obama to Hitler per se...just the phenomenon of Obama followers and Hitler's National Socialist Party. 'Nuff to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.
Kids are meaner than adults
Talk about a jungle where only the strong survive - makes this board look like a tea party with the queen of England.
I think it would be good for kids to do something constructive -
why would you not want your kids to volunteer in the community to do positive things that would also pay them for college in the long run? And why such bitterness about the fact that he is proposing that idea?
It is not mandatory, so it is your choice, but the country is falling apart because nobody wants to do anything anymore!
My kids do community service
They have participated in numerous community service programs and projects, from collecting and packing items for the homeless to refurbishing parks. They ask to participate in them based on the listings in our newspaper. How very sad for your children that you would not allow them to feel invested in their community and would deny them the wonderful feeling that comes from helping others.
if kids are forced to do it, then adults should be too
x
Yep, I knew it would go from slamming her kids to
nm
Yeah, right. Like he could really send his kids
I don't care if he sends his kids to the moon for school and it costs $900K per trip. Just so long as I don't have to look one more day at the current drooling, vacant-looking, substandard specimen of the human species occupying the Oval Office. Talk about a murky gene pool.
I see you're still obsessed over SP and the kids
nm
Jailing Kids for Cash
Tuesday 17 February 2009
by: Amy Goodman, Truthdig.com
 Hillary Transue was sentenced to three months in juvenile detention. Transue made a web page mocking her assistant principal. (Photo: Niko J. Kallianiotis / The New York Times)
As many as 5,000 children in Pennsylvania have been found guilty, and up to 2,000 of them jailed, by two corrupt judges who received kickbacks from the builders and owners of private prison facilities that benefited. The two judges pleaded guilty in a stunning case of greed and corruption that is still unfolding. Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan received $2.6 million in kickbacks while imprisoning children who often had no access to a lawyer. The case offers an extraordinary glimpse into the shameful private prison industry that is flourishing in the United States.
Take the story of Jamie Quinn. When she was 14 years old, she was imprisoned for almost a year. Jamie, now 18, described the incident that led to her incarceration:
"I got into an argument with one of my friends. And all that happened was just a basic fight. She slapped me in the face, and I did the same thing back. There [were] no marks, no witnesses, nothing. It was just her word against my word."
Jamie was placed in one of the two controversial facilities, PA Child Care, then bounced around to several other locations. The 11-month imprisonment had a devastating impact on her. She told me: "People looked at me different when I came out, thought I was a bad person, because I was gone for so long. My family started splitting up ... because I was away and got locked up. I'm still struggling in school, because the schooling system in facilities like these places [are] just horrible."
She began cutting herself, blaming medication that she was forced to take: "I was never depressed, I was never put on meds before. I went there, and they just started putting meds on me, and I didn't even know what they were. They said if I didn't take them, I wasn't following my program." She was hospitalized three times.
Jamie Quinn is just one of thousands that these two corrupt judges locked up. The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center got involved when Hillary Transue was sent away for three months for posting a Web site parodying the assistant principal at her school. Hillary clearly marked the Web page as a joke. The assistant principal didn't find it funny, apparently, and Hillary faced the notoriously harsh Judge Ciavarella.
As Bob Schwartz of the Juvenile Law Center told me: "Hillary had, unknown to her, signed a paper, her mother had signed a paper, giving up her right to a lawyer. That made the 90-second hearing that she had in front of Judge Ciavarella pretty much of a kangaroo court." The JLC found that in half of the juvenile cases in Luzerne County, defendants had waived their right to an attorney. Judge Ciavarella repeatedly ignored recommendations for leniency from both prosecutors and probation officers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard the JLC's case, then the FBI began an investigation, which resulted in the two judges entering guilty-plea agreements last week for tax evasion and wire fraud.
They are expected to serve seven years in federal prison. Two separate class-action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the imprisoned children.
This scandal involves just one county in the U.S., and one relatively small private prison company. According to The Sentencing Project, "the United States is the world's leader in incarceration with 2.1 million people currently in the nation's prisons or jails—a 500 percent increase over the past thirty years." The Wall Street Journal reports that "[p]rison companies are preparing for a wave of new business as the economic downturn makes it increasingly difficult for federal and state government officials to build and operate their own jails." For-profit prison companies like the Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut) are positioned for increased profits. It is still not clear what impact the just-signed stimulus bill will have on the private prison industry (for example, the bill contains $800 million for prison construction, yet billions for school construction were cut out).
Congress is considering legislation to improve juvenile justice policy, legislation the American Civil Liberties Union says is "built on the clear evidence that community-based programs can be far more successful at preventing youth crime than the discredited policies of excessive incarceration."
Our children need education and opportunity, not incarceration. Let the kids of Luzerne County imprisoned for profit by corrupt judges teach us a lesson. As young Jamie Quinn said of her 11-month imprisonment, "It just makes me really question other authority figures and people that we're supposed to look up to and trust."
|
