On 2004-12-30 09:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
"No it's not Rick, I* know who he is and don't work for him. As for not eating, I don't know what shool your son went to, but at most of the schools i deal with, they do not starve them. I was told by a girl i took from one program to another that they get a choice at each meal and that is a %50 portion, or %100. The thing i don't agree with is that what ever thier choice they need to eat all of it or get in trouble. As i said i don't agree with everything that is done.But they don't starve them. I was also told that the %100 portion was very large.
I'm sorry if i can't say my name and who i work for, but there are too many hateful people here and me and my company don't need any hate mail or phone calls. Tha one that cares"
And you don't know that the "50%" portion was actually half the size of the very large portion, or too small.
It would be quite easy to subject the incarcerated person to a mindgame choice of either having to choose to go hungry, or having to choose to gorge themselves sick.
You notice "75%" was not an option?
Okay, you don't agree with some of the crap that happens, I hear you.
What you need to realize is that most of us who are program critics are *NOT* talking in terms of the false dichotomy of choices the program advocates imply.
We aren't talking about zero treatment and zero residential care or the programs as they are now.
We're talking about implementing and enforcing effective safeguards.
Where Ginger and I differ is I want new laws and she wants them to enforce the old ones.
I think the difference comes from two places. One is that Ginger has been at this a whole lot longer than I have and has a whole lot of relevant personal experience. The other difference is that, as an experienced activist on another subject, my experiences with laws are on how you make sure they have teeth and actually get the enforcement done.
There are a whole lot of things that are illegal under laws that aren't enforced. When a law on the books isn't enforced, usually it's because nobody had the political will to do it. As an activist, once you generate the political will, how you turn it into results is you get legislation passed supplying the missing pieces of the enforcement puzzle. To get something enforced when the authorities are reluctant it's not enough to just pass a law saying thus and so is illegal. You have to specify penalties for violations. You have to assign enforcement responsibility to particular agencies. You have to pass funding for those agencies for them to do the enforcement. You have to pass reporting and paperwork requirements for those agencies so that they know there is a paper trail about whether or not they are doing their job of enforcement and make it crystal clear that their professional advancement hinges on doing a good job (some of that--the professional advancement consequences--is a political activism function, not a legislative one). And then activists have to actually use that paper trail, and the campaign finance paper trails, to hold the feet of the enforcement officials and politicians to the fire in the public eye.
When enforcing regulatory oversight is a source of budget funds, and career advancement, and neglecting enforcement is a source of serious political heat, that's when bureaucrats and law enforcement actually go out and enforce the laws making something illegal.
I'd be fine with enforcing the existing laws, too, except that I think that they need tweaking to be more practically enforceable.
And Ginger is absolutely right that Fornits is doing a fabulous job of generating grassroots political will, especially for the size and resources involved. She's doing a bang-up job.
We aren't trying to shut down all teen residential treatment or make it any more prohibitively expensive than it already is.
We're just trying to actually get a lot of the things that *you don't agree with either* fixed---permanently and reliably.
Nobody likes being regulated, but I don't expect to drive my car, especially in a major city, without getting an annual emissions inspection and carrying car insurance and maintaining a driver's license.
The programs shouldn't expect to have all these minors living under their care without a whole lot of meaningful government oversight and enforcement to make sure the kids that are there need to be there and are being well cared for.
I'm still just flabbergasted that they seem to think it's not only fine but necessary and right for them to operate with people's *kids* in their care with less meaningful oversight than I muddle along with every day when I drive down the street to the grocery store.
I don't want teen residential treatment shut down---I want it cleaned up.
I want it cleaned up a lot, but basically I just want it cleaned up.
Timoclea
