The Failure of Programs & Plans

Pages

In another thread, the topic of the current administration's plan (or lack of, if that's what you think) in Iraq has 'failed'. And in pursuit of that thought, Pyro said:

Pyroman wrote:

There may be arguments that thier post-war planning was as good as it could be, but these are pretty poor excuses. What happens when your plan fails and your boss comes up to you and asks what happened? "it didn't account for all the variables", "it should've been updated", "it was hard". Seriously.

And it got me thinking. What about all of the failed plans to fix social ailments over the past 50 years? Have those plans been subjected to the level of scrutiny in the press and public debate that the plan to rebuild Iraq has? Have we spent 1/10th the effort pointing out that the plans like the 'war on poverty', rent-controls, welfare, social security, government sponsored heath care, affirmative action, sex education in schools, 'progressive learning' in schools, etc have all failed more miserably than the plan to rebuild Iraq?

Why are we so quick to proclaim that an effort to rebuild a nation has failed before even a year has passed, and yet 40 years of 'criminal reform not criminal punishment' causing an actual increase in crime goes unnoticed?

I agree, there are many plans that have failed locally. And attention has been paid to them by plenty of people who don''t like those plans. Of course, I don''t agree with all your characterizations, but let''s put the specificities aside for a moment and assume there are a lot of failed plans at home. But they are a different beast entirely, if only for the primary reason that the people directly involved - being the American public - play a part in their own destiny. They are plans visited upon themselves by a sovereign nation, not levied from outside our borders. To be more analogous you''d have to describe plans dictated to us by Canada, which last I checked, hasn''t really happened.

Still, even if they were similar, the plans you''re describing have all been extensively criticized and considered in the media. Poverty, welfare, social security being the most obviously weak of those listed - others being a matter of subjectivity as to their success or failure - are all regularly revised, revisited, and recast, so to claim that just because at the moment there''s a lot of talk about the administration''s shortcomings in Iraq and not as much on these other topics somehow means there is no talk on those topics is a bit disingenuous.

But, you know what? None of that matters, because I think you''re absolutely right. I think we should have taken all those resources and time and lives we spent ''liberating'' a country for spurious reasons and spent it addressing domestic issues. I''m glad we see eye to eye on that.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

... the plans like the ''war on poverty'', rent-controls, welfare, social security, government sponsored heath care, affirmative action, sex education in schools, ''progressive learning'' in schools, etc have all failed more miserably than the plan to rebuild Iraq?...

Let''s add the war on drugs to that too. By the way, I know there is a concerted effort to help the poor but, I have never heard to it referred as a ""War on Poverty"". Except by Anne Coulter of course.

A few of your examples I agree with very much, failed plans that need much revamping/fixing/ditching for something new. However, Govt Health Care has not been even tried here and since sex education has been implemented in schools teenage pregnancy rates have gone down. Granted you probably can''t link sex ed as SOLELY the reason it''s gone down but, to say that it hasn''t helped is naive.

So, I agree to a point, let''s scrap some things and fix them or go with something new all together. Like, Welfare, social security, the war on drugs...maybe changing our strategy in Iraq? Now, I''m not saying we should pull out at all but, maybe a change in how we''re going about trying to win the peace. It''s possibly the most important thing we''re going to do in the next few years, it never hurts to stop and re-examine your plan, and change it if need be.

Why are we so quick to proclaim that an effort to rebuild a nation has failed before even a year has passed, and yet 40 years of ''criminal reform not criminal punishment'' causing an actual increase in crime goes unnoticed?

Additionally, one of the only reasons that crime has been so flatlined over the past two decades - you''re wrong, it hasn''t increased - is because of Reagan''s dramatically failed war on drugs which persecutes the ethnicities that do the least drugs per capita and disproportionally put them in prison. But let''s talk about what you really mean when you say crime. You mean violent crime, I''d assume.

Thanks for bringing that success story up. Violent crime has decreased dramatically over the past twenty years. Despite conservative efforts to overtax the prison system with non-violent drug offenders, we''ve managed to make terrific progress. Thanks for asking!

information

I have some work to do, so I''ll deep dive a bit later today. For now, I just wanted to respond briefly:

Belt, the ''War on Poverty'' was first used by LBJ. His administration said that crime was caused by poverty, and he set out to eradicate it.

Ely, I don''t think we should reallocate the resources being spent in Iraq domestically. And I know you know that. So cut it out.

I purposefully didn''t include the war on drugs in my list. But, in retrospect, it should be there. I think the war on drugs is an effort to curb illegal behaivior, not really a ''social program'', which is why I initially excluded it. But that doesn''t really work, because lots of social programs began with that same intent, so let''s add it to the discussion.

Ely, up until the 50''s, crime had been decreasing across the board. Every category. After the beginnings of the ''war on poverty'', and more importantly the enactment of the belief that the criminal was in fact a victim (and should be treated as such), crime rose steadily for 25 years. It wasn''t until punishment (as opposed to rehabilitation) became fashionable again that crime rates started to drop. To me, the facts point to the fact that punishment and deterrents are much more effective at lowering crime rates than social programs aimed at ''rehabilitation''.

As to your statement about ''overtaxing the prision system with non-violent drug users'' and ''persecut(ing) the ethnicities that do the least drugs per capita and disproportionally put(ting) them in prison'', don''t you think that the fear of punishment has contributed to the drop in drug use? As for the persecution of ethnicities - while you say that they are the least likely to use drugs, aren''t they the most likely to sell drugs?

Honestly? I think crime is caused by people''s inate sense of wanting what they see and they want it right now. Mass market advertising is inundating the country with products we cant afford in the near or long term. Men are subjected to images of women they will never meet. Our sneakers have to cost at least $150. Women are bombarded with ads that convey the message ""If your man doesnt buy you diamonds for every special occassion, he doesnt love you."" $50,000 Lexus''s have now been deemed an exceptable christmas present. Its like we are the bratty kids just before christmas with a wishlist half a mile long. Instead of throwing tantrums to get what we want we take it, steal it or bankrupt ourselves to get it.

Maybe that''s a key as well, maturity. A lot of people never outgrow that mentality of buying what they cant afford. If your neighbor got the toy you wanted for christmas you can just take it right?

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Belt, the ''War on Poverty'' was first used by LBJ. His administration said that crime was caused by poverty, and he set out to eradicate it.

Interesting, thanks, I didn''t know that.

It wasn''t until punishment (as opposed to rehabilitation) became fashionable again that crime rates started to drop. To me, the facts point to the fact that punishment and deterrents are much more effective at lowering crime rates than social programs aimed at ''rehabilitation''.

JMJ, if you believe that this re-commitment to punishment is the reason we are seeing a decrease in crime, why did you say that society did not notice that the ""Vicimization"" method was not working?

"JMJ" wrote:

yet 40 years of ''criminal reform not criminal punishment'' causing an actual increase in crime goes unnoticed?

If the new move toward punishment is causing the decrease in crime, then the above statement doesn''t seem like a fair criticism.

Sorry. Let me clear up my thinking. I wrote the posts with half-a-brain, so I apologize for muddled thinking.

The ''criminals as victims'' mindset came about in the 1960''s. Several social reforms shifted the balance firmly into the hands of the criminals within the judicial system. This subsequently led to an increase in criminal activity, as criminals were ''beating the system'' and had little deterrent to crime.

About 20 years ago, the severity of punishments started increasing. So, it was (and is) still onerously difficult for the police and DA to get a conviction, but once they do the punishment is more severe than it used to be. Mind you, when I refer to punishments as being severe, I am referring to non-violent crimes. (I don''t think there is a harsh enough punishment for rape or 1st degree murder.)

So you have people who think that criminals are victims (and that mindset continues to this day), and they refuse to recognize that their efforts have made the crime situation worse, not better, over the years. They are who I was referring to in the first post. When I made the comment about ''40 years'', I should have defined that I meant from roughly 1960 to the mid-nineties. I also should have been clearer that I meant the social policy and the belief that led to that policy originated 40 years ago, and has never been subject to serious scrutiny as a matter of public debate (in comparison to the Iraq plan, which has been put under the microscope and is less than a year old.)

And now for a long, half-coherent ramble. Exams started today, so you know...be lenient.

So is the fact that the U.S. has the highest per capita rate of folks in prison for an industrialized country by a wide margin a self-fulfilling argument for how much better we are at stopping crime. It seems to speak more towards how good we are at punishment than prevention.

Which for me speaks volumes about what''s so screwed up with health care and welfare and some of the other areas you mention. There''s a very real difference between dealing with causes, dealing with consequences, and skipping over both to prevent the unwanted results in whatever way works. Hmm. How to put that simply. Here''s health care example. You''ve got overweight, high heart-attack risk patients who range in age from 65-85. You know that if they hit the hospital it will cost an average of $50K a pop. Dealing with causes would be trying to make them not old, not having a family history of heart disease, and taking better care of themselves for the last 60+ years. Dealing with consequences means trying to make a hospital stay cost $40,000 instead of $50,000, and in general have better outcomes. Prevention would mean spending $90 every two weeks for each patient to meet briefly with a doctor and a nutritionist to monitor their diet, health, and risk-factors. A doctors group in California found the latter practice saved them...a crapload of money (a doctor run HMO basically).

We''ve never gotten a handle on cheaper prevention as opposed to causes we can''t change, and outcomes that are costly by nature. I understand JMJ''s point that perceived imminent threat of punishment is one deterrent. However alot of violent crimes are committed in a state of mind where such far away consequences are not going to be taken into account. Wouldn''t it be cool if I had an analagous prevention method for it? Honestly, I think it''s in part cultural and that can''t get legislated.

I used to wear a button in college that said, ""Men can stop rape."" This button made perfect sense to me, after witnessing a discussion by a large set of your average group of college-aged men, who seemed to have an attitude of ""see how far you can get until she says no."" Which to me was pretty clearly a ""sex as goal, woman as obstacle to that goal"" mindset or in other words a rape mentality. As opposed to, ""what would really turn you on tonight, dear?"" I''m not sure how many people I affected by wearing said button. I had a large number of women thank me, with some of them being close to tears. That..freaked me out at age 19 but there you go. I had maybe 10 guys discuss it with me, and maybe 2 guys who got openly hostile on seeing it. I don''t know how many of the guys in the Men''s Glee Club changed a single thing about themselves, but a great many of them respected me and none of them gave me flack about it.

Here''s my point for anyone still reading: get practical. Do what''s doable in your immediate surroundings besides spouting off on a great website. Having the mindset that fixing these programs is possible without fixing the crap going on in our own immediate surroundings is really weird to me.

Think affirmative action is bad? Go out of your way to find some minority candidates for a job posting you have that are clearly the best candidate AND suited for the job. Guess who''s pioneering that effort....Mr. George W. Bush.

Sometime take a look at race and gender demographics of federal judge appointments starting from Reagan til present. The diversity keeps going up, even from Clinton to Bush Jr. There I said a nice thing about Bush.

What did that ranting guy in Bloom County used to say, ""This is Somebody T. Putgrass signing off and heading for the bathroom!""

Wow, Roo. Admirable. Simply admirable.

So is the fact that the U.S. has the highest per capita rate of folks in prison for an industrialized country by a wide margin a self-fulfilling argument for how much better we are at stopping crime

The reason we have a higher crime rate than other industrialized nations is because we have a non-integrated minority that has been self-destructing in one way or another for 40 years. Find a way to stabilize and integrate the black community and most of our crime problem disappears.

On a more general crime note, people commit crimes because they lack morals. The idea that people are ""stealing bread to feed their family"" is a myth - the government and churches will give bread to anyone that asks. So crime, including violent crime is caused by a lack of moral grounding and a lack of control and discipline. And when you have someone who lacks morals, control and discipline, all you have left is the threat of punishment.

"ralcydan" wrote:

The reason we have a higher crime rate than other industrialized nations is because we have a non-integrated minority that has been self-destructing in one way or another for 40 years. Find a way to stabilize and integrate the black community and most of our crime problem disappears.

On a more general crime note, people commit crimes because they lack morals. The idea that people are ""stealing bread to feed their family"" is a myth - the government and churches will give bread to anyone that asks. So crime, including violent crime is caused by a lack of moral grounding and a lack of control and discipline. And when you have someone who lacks morals, control and discipline, all you have left is the threat of punishment.

Ral, what it sounds like you are basically saying is:
We have a lot of crime because black people are immoral, not fully part of society and unstable. If we can find a way to get black people integrated into our society, maybe they will learn our morals and our crime will virtually disappear.

I''m not trying to put words in your mouth but, that''s what it sounded like from your last post.

*edit: Grammar sucked.*

it sounds like you are basically saying is:
We have a lot of crime because black people are immoral

I certainly didn''t say ""black people are immoral."" But the ones who commit crimes are lacking in a proper moral grounding to deter them. Also, the number of blacks who are criminals is certainly a minority of the black population. However, the numbers of blacks who commit crimes, particularly violent crimes, is hugely disproportionate to any other ethnic group, including other minorities.

I believe that this disproportionality is a direct result of the breakdown of the family, and that this breakdown is epidemic in the black community. Restore the family, and you restore the basis for discipline and moral learning.

"ralcydan" wrote:

I believe that this disproportionality is a direct result of the breakdown of the family, and that this breakdown is epidemic in the black community.

So black families are failures?

So black families are failures?

I am starting to see why liberals think the way they do. You guys are unable to see a statement without assuming it is being applied to everyone - even when it explicitly isn''t.

I have never made the following gross generalizations:
""black people are immoral""
""black families are failures""

However, your reading comprehension abilities are starting to make me form a gross generalization about liberals...

Ral,
First you said:

"ralcydan" wrote:

The reason we have a higher crime rate than other industrialized nations is because we have a non-integrated minority that has been self-destructing in one way or another for 40 years. Find a way to stabilize and integrate the black community and most of our crime problem disappears.

High crime because the black community is non-integrated and self destructing.

So crime, including violent crime is caused by a lack of moral grounding and a lack of control and discipline. And when you have someone who lacks morals, control and discipline, all you have left is the threat of punishment.

Crime is commited by people who lack morals.

Remember those reading comprehension tests in grade school? Where they asked you to read a paragraph and choose the sentence that best represents what you just read?

Anyways, I think my comprehension is just fine. I don''t think ""black people are the cause of society''s ills"" was what you meant to say, it was just the way you worded it...

Right. And again, I didn''t ever say ""black people are immoral"", since I never implied that all black people do or would commit crimes. A disproportionate number of black families suffer from social problems, ranging from poor education to no paternal influence, and this leads to a disproportionate amount of crime. And the crime coming out of the black community is so wildly disproportionate for the black population, that it skews the crime rates of this country as a whole.

My ""reading comprehension"" comment was aimed at Rat. He was trying to be inflammatory and you weren''t, so you got an answer and he got a dig - sorry. But setting that aside, what is so wrong with what I have said here?

A disproportionate number of black families suffer from social problems, ranging from poor education to no paternal influence, and this leads to a disproportionate amount of crime.

Do you give any credence to the argument that disproportionate numbers of black men from poorer urban areas are imprisoned for offenses for which others might do little if any time?

Things like marijuana possession where an 18 year old white kid might get probation for a first offense but an 18 year old black kid also with no record might end up in jail. I''m a little busy right now and don''t have time to go hunting down exact statistics but you should be familiar enough with the argument to state an opinion.

But setting that aside, what is so wrong with what I have said here?

Because it is innacurate, vague, and perpetuating a grossly unfair stereotype. You give out these broad generalizations like ""crime is committed by people with no morals"" with going any further than that. Why do they lack morals? Why are families falling apart? Maybe if you try explaining yourself a bit more, people won''t assume the worst of you.

Because it is innacurate, vague, and perpetuating a grossly unfair stereotype

Name one thing I said which is inaccurate. If your issue is that I was vague, I can explain further. Also, if I am accurate, and also have explicitly stated that the problems I describe are not descriptive of a majority of blacks, then I am not stereotyping.

"Ockham" wrote:

Do you give any credence to the argument that disproportionate numbers of black men from poorer urban areas are imprisoned for offenses for which others might do little if any time?

Things like marijuana possession where an 18 year old white kid might get probation for a first offense but an 18 year old black kid also with no record might end up in jail. I''m a little busy right now and don''t have time to go hunting down exact statistics but you should be familiar enough with the argument to state an opinion.

I am familiar with the argument, but have never taken the time to look up the statistics.

For the purpose of my argument, I don''t think this applies (though we can talk about it), as I am talking about the committing of crimes, not the sentence received after conviction. Blacks commit about 50% of all crimes, but represent only 13% of the population. And most crimes by blacks - including violent crimes - are against other blacks. That tells me there is something deeply wrong in the black community.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Name one thing I said which is inaccurate. If your issue is that I was vague, I can explain further.

On a more general crime note, people commit crimes because they lack morals.

Although you said it in general, do you have any proof of this? Do you have any proof that black criminals lack morals? Do you have any evidence that connects ""the failure of family"" (a conservative fallacy if I ever heard one) to crime from the African-American community?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Quote:
On a more general crime note, people commit crimes because they lack morals.

Although you said it in general, do you have any proof of this?

As opposed to thinking that most criminals have a strong grounding in right and wrong, but instead commit crimes because they...hmmm. You''re going to have to finish that sentence because I am having trouble.

Do you have any evidence that connects ""the failure of family"" (a conservative fallacy if I ever heard one) to crime from the African-American community?

I never used the phrase ""the failure of family"" - you did. This makes it particularly funny that you would single it out as a ""conservative fallacy"".

By the way, I thought you were going to explain to me how I was inaccurate- having a little trouble doing so?

Rat, Ral comes in here and posts something you disagree with and all I see is you doing is picking apart everything he says and trying to make him look like an asshole. This is not the point of these forums, we''re not about winning hearts and minds here. If you have an opinion, offer it. If you''re just commenting in threads to perpetuate your running disagreements with Ral keep it to yourself.

I don''t care if you two want to call each other out on various points, just don''t make it your entire reason for posting.

I am trying to get ral to explain himself so he won''t look like an asshole. I wasn''t the one who said his statement sounded bigotted first. I may have done so in the past, but not this time.

I am trying to get ral to explain himself so he won''t look like an asshole. I wasn''t the one who said his statement sounded bigotted first. I may have done so in the past, but not this time.

Whatever your noble reasons for doing so, don''t zero in on one person''s posts without contributing anything of your own. That''s all.

That goes for everyone, it''s ok once in a while but I don''t need this forum section turning into some weird stalker game. It happens all the time in other forum''s and I don''t want to see it start here.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

I am trying to get ral to explain himself so he won''t look like an asshole.

No Rat, you said I was inaccurate, vague and perpetuating stereotypes. Well ok, tell me how. Again, what did I say that was inaccurate?

I wasn''t the one who said his statement sounded bigotted first.

Actually so one has said I sounded bigoted at all, so there''s no problem that I can see. Certis said that you should stop ""trying"" to make me look like an asshole, not that I already looked like one or that you were succeeding...

Oh no, I don''t think you need that much help anymore. People believe one way or the other by now...

Ral''s post caught my eye because it seemed like he was saying something that I didn''t really think he meant to say. Which is why I said so in my post.

I was pointing out that it sounded bigoted, true. I also said that I didn''t think he meant it to be.

Oh no, I don''t think you need that much help anymore. People believe one way or the other by now...

Is that yet another creative way of saying, ""I can''t actually say that what you said was inaccurate. I am sorry and I retract my unsupported statement.""?

No, I said you don''t need anymore help by people trying to make you look like an asshole. People have made up their minds about it already. At least I have.

Pages