[Shadowfax]

I don’t see the salaries being exceptionally high–the problem is the OT, benefits and bonuses. It is odd to see bonuses paid in an industry that isn’t promoting “growth”. That is, you would expect to see a sales person get a bonus for increased (or steady) sales, but what does a prison guard have to increase to get a bonus? Is it for good attendance? Preventing riots or promoting safety?

I maintain that this is not a pleasant job and that the higher than normal compensation is needed for recruitment and retention. From the WSJ article comments:

I worked as a California Corrections Peace Officer for five years. Just enough to be retirement vested. There is no comparing a Harvard Law grad to a Prison Officer. I invite the author to attend the Peace Officer Standards and Training Academy. Then go spend five years working at High Desert State Prison in Susanville CA. Wear 30 pounds of body armor and gear. At about 10% of Post you carry a rifle. Expect two or three mandatory eight hour overtimes shifts a week. An in 64 hour weeks. Mandatory due to Staffing requirements. On a daily basis protect Inmates from other Inmates. Get used to riots, rapings, murders, suicides, and killers who can quote Chapter and Verse what their entitled to. Deal with the criminally mentally ill and a culture of Inmate Entitlements. Expect to have to justify the “Use of Force” on paper and in Interviews every week. OH… The best part is you’ll be the “overpaid brutal indulged scapegoat” for all prison problems in the Press. California gives millions to the private “Prison Law Office” at San Quentin to sue the Dept of Corrections. I had a twenty five years Military career and three years working in the Idaho Prision prior to this. I didn’t plan to leave after five years. But how much feces, urine, and HIV infected blood would you want thrown at you? Let the author “walk the walk” before she judges Correction Officers. P.S. We have not had a Contract in years
Robert Dawson, Boise Idaho

The benefits seem pretty excessive, all the paid time off seems to require those on duty to work more OT! I am curious why all the OT–are people injured and can’t come in? Can’t they have officers “on call” to relieve people who are due to get off duty? I think the OT issue needs to be addressed, since that seems to be where poor planning results in large expenses. If Applebee’s and Fed Ex can mandate breaks and shift changes on a 7 hour basis, why can’t a prison? (kidding, sort of. I guess exceptions can be made for riot lock-downs) I don’t have much sympathy for the working holidays and stuff–seems like that could be addressed too–the new recruits at the bottom of the pay scale or ask for volunteers to work holidays. Jewish or atheist officers could work xmas day. Most industries do it this way, or you just have to tough it out and work anyway.

It’d be interesting to see when the high salaries were implemented–perhaps at a time when they couldn’t find anyone to take those jobs? Utimately, the compensation structure was implemented at some past date and now it has overgrown the tax base. I wouldn’t be surprised if the “top earners” are slated for early retirement so that the budget can be brought back in line. A lot of public institutions use this as a way of cutting their long-time employees who have maxed out the pay scale. Private companies do this all the time (which is why being over 40 is a protected class under CA employment law). Your experienced workers are the first to get axed so they can hire cheaper entry level folks.

I’d like to see teachers paid this much and not prison guards. I guess the teacher’s union(s) didn’t have enought “muscle” to amp up the pay scale. I am usually in support of unions, but this one does seem to have gone far over the line of reasonableness.

[Shadowfax]

I don’t see the salaries being exceptionally high–the problem is the OT, benefits and bonuses. It is odd to see bonuses paid in an industry that isn’t promoting “growth”. That is, you would expect to see a sales person get a bonus for increased (or steady) sales, but what does a prison guard have to increase to get a bonus? Is it for good attendance? Preventing riots or promoting safety?

I maintain that this is not a pleasant job and that the higher than normal compensation is needed for recruitment and retention. From the WSJ article comments:

I worked as a California Corrections Peace Officer for five years. Just enough to be retirement vested. There is no comparing a Harvard Law grad to a Prison Officer. I invite the author to attend the Peace Officer Standards and Training Academy. Then go spend five years working at High Desert State Prison in Susanville CA. Wear 30 pounds of body armor and gear. At about 10% of Post you carry a rifle. Expect two or three mandatory eight hour overtimes shifts a week. An in 64 hour weeks. Mandatory due to Staffing requirements. On a daily basis protect Inmates from other Inmates. Get used to riots, rapings, murders, suicides, and killers who can quote Chapter and Verse what their entitled to. Deal with the criminally mentally ill and a culture of Inmate Entitlements. Expect to have to justify the “Use of Force” on paper and in Interviews every week. OH… The best part is you’ll be the “overpaid brutal indulged scapegoat” for all prison problems in the Press. California gives millions to the private “Prison Law Office” at San Quentin to sue the Dept of Corrections. I had a twenty five years Military career and three years working in the Idaho Prision prior to this. I didn’t plan to leave after five years. But how much feces, urine, and HIV infected blood would you want thrown at you? Let the author “walk the walk” before she judges Correction Officers. P.S. We have not had a Contract in years
Robert Dawson, Boise Idaho

The benefits seem pretty excessive, all the paid time off seems to require those on duty to work more OT! I am curious why all the OT–are people injured and can’t come in? Can’t they have officers “on call” to relieve people who are due to get off duty? I think the OT issue needs to be addressed, since that seems to be where poor planning results in large expenses. If Applebee’s and Fed Ex can mandate breaks and shift changes on a 7 hour basis, why can’t a prison? (kidding, sort of. I guess exceptions can be made for riot lock-downs) I don’t have much sympathy for the working holidays and stuff–seems like that could be addressed too–the new recruits at the bottom of the pay scale or ask for volunteers to work holidays. Jewish or atheist officers could work xmas day. Most industries do it this way, or you just have to tough it out and work anyway.

It’d be interesting to see when the high salaries were implemented–perhaps at a time when they couldn’t find anyone to take those jobs? Utimately, the compensation structure was implemented at some past date and now it has overgrown the tax base. I wouldn’t be surprised if the “top earners” are slated for early retirement so that the budget can be brought back in line. A lot of public institutions use this as a way of cutting their long-time employees who have maxed out the pay scale. Private companies do this all the time (which is why being over 40 is a protected class under CA employment law). Your experienced workers are the first to get axed so they can hire cheaper entry level folks.

I’d like to see teachers paid this much and not prison guards. I guess the teacher’s union(s) didn’t have enought “muscle” to amp up the pay scale. I am usually in support of unions, but this one does seem to have gone far over the line of reasonableness.

[Shadowfax]

I find it very amusing that the Donald is so grumpy during all the jokes and ribbing aimed at him. He needs to find, borrow or steal a sense of humor–what did he think the Correspondent’s Dinner was all about, the DC condo/housing market?

Especially notable is Donald Grump’s reaction to Seth Myers’ portion of the program. You can almost see him mouthing the words “You’re fired!” during the whole act! If you can’t laugh at yourself, you are in for an unhappy life.

[Shadowfax]

I find it very amusing that the Donald is so grumpy during all the jokes and ribbing aimed at him. He needs to find, borrow or steal a sense of humor–what did he think the Correspondent’s Dinner was all about, the DC condo/housing market?

Especially notable is Donald Grump’s reaction to Seth Myers’ portion of the program. You can almost see him mouthing the words “You’re fired!” during the whole act! If you can’t laugh at yourself, you are in for an unhappy life.

[Shadowfax]

I find it very amusing that the Donald is so grumpy during all the jokes and ribbing aimed at him. He needs to find, borrow or steal a sense of humor–what did he think the Correspondent’s Dinner was all about, the DC condo/housing market?

Especially notable is Donald Grump’s reaction to Seth Myers’ portion of the program. You can almost see him mouthing the words “You’re fired!” during the whole act! If you can’t laugh at yourself, you are in for an unhappy life.

[Shadowfax]

I find it very amusing that the Donald is so grumpy during all the jokes and ribbing aimed at him. He needs to find, borrow or steal a sense of humor–what did he think the Correspondent’s Dinner was all about, the DC condo/housing market?

Especially notable is Donald Grump’s reaction to Seth Myers’ portion of the program. You can almost see him mouthing the words “You’re fired!” during the whole act! If you can’t laugh at yourself, you are in for an unhappy life.

[Shadowfax]

I find it very amusing that the Donald is so grumpy during all the jokes and ribbing aimed at him. He needs to find, borrow or steal a sense of humor–what did he think the Correspondent’s Dinner was all about, the DC condo/housing market?

Especially notable is Donald Grump’s reaction to Seth Myers’ portion of the program. You can almost see him mouthing the words “You’re fired!” during the whole act! If you can’t laugh at yourself, you are in for an unhappy life.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rustico] I think there is enough content in my post in this thread for you to see what I mean? The example of the mother from Shadowfax’s link? There are much more severe cases of parents and others messing with the sexuality/gender identity of preschoolers. It’s emotional abuse with an predictible outcome.That kind of thing makes for an indoctrination in my mind. When politics covers this up I call that an indoctrination and a crime.

Kids come into life vunerable as to identity formation and social function in many factors. Kind of like when a soldier goes to war. Homosexuality is a type of PTSD reaction that children acquire to unusual circumstances, subtle and extreme. I don’t want to codify reinforcement of that with Homoagenda and resulting politics based social engineering.

Homosexuals should have the same protections as anyone, else but promotion via a special class because of an acquired “identity” is wrong, even if most of them can’t change, or are thrilled to be gay.[/quote]

No, no, no. Kids aren’t vulnerable to indoctrination regarding sexual orientation. My family background is a rebuttal to your theory. My sister and I have different fathers, but the same mother. I am straight (and never had any interest in same gender) and she is a lesbian. Not irrefutable proof of genetics but definitely not a datapoint for “nurture.”

Let’s except out the victims of incest or other abuse, because that is not what we are talking about here. That is a class all it’s own.

In cases where people independently identify, you have a wide range of childhood experiences. I can’t quote you a study, but I am sure I could find one, but from my own life experience, there are tons of examples of gay men, for instance, who played football or cops and robbers as children or participated in other “manly” activities with moms and dads who expected them to be and act straight. Some enjoyed these activities/upbringing and it had no influence on their sexual preference. Others experienced this it in a reverse of what you are saying–to please their parents and society to seem more masculine, even though they never found much enjoyment in it. Maybe they even got married to a woman and had a couple kids to persuade everyone, even themselves, that they were straight. But later in life, many of these men (in this example) will tell you that they always liked the same-gender, even though they tried hard not to (counseling, hormone therapy).

So if the reverse-indoctrination doesn’t work for a gay guy/girl trying to be straight, do you really think “gay indoctrination” (whether intentional or subtle) works on someone who is trending toward heterosexuality? I just don’t see it in my experience.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rustico] I think there is enough content in my post in this thread for you to see what I mean? The example of the mother from Shadowfax’s link? There are much more severe cases of parents and others messing with the sexuality/gender identity of preschoolers. It’s emotional abuse with an predictible outcome.That kind of thing makes for an indoctrination in my mind. When politics covers this up I call that an indoctrination and a crime.

Kids come into life vunerable as to identity formation and social function in many factors. Kind of like when a soldier goes to war. Homosexuality is a type of PTSD reaction that children acquire to unusual circumstances, subtle and extreme. I don’t want to codify reinforcement of that with Homoagenda and resulting politics based social engineering.

Homosexuals should have the same protections as anyone, else but promotion via a special class because of an acquired “identity” is wrong, even if most of them can’t change, or are thrilled to be gay.[/quote]

No, no, no. Kids aren’t vulnerable to indoctrination regarding sexual orientation. My family background is a rebuttal to your theory. My sister and I have different fathers, but the same mother. I am straight (and never had any interest in same gender) and she is a lesbian. Not irrefutable proof of genetics but definitely not a datapoint for “nurture.”

Let’s except out the victims of incest or other abuse, because that is not what we are talking about here. That is a class all it’s own.

In cases where people independently identify, you have a wide range of childhood experiences. I can’t quote you a study, but I am sure I could find one, but from my own life experience, there are tons of examples of gay men, for instance, who played football or cops and robbers as children or participated in other “manly” activities with moms and dads who expected them to be and act straight. Some enjoyed these activities/upbringing and it had no influence on their sexual preference. Others experienced this it in a reverse of what you are saying–to please their parents and society to seem more masculine, even though they never found much enjoyment in it. Maybe they even got married to a woman and had a couple kids to persuade everyone, even themselves, that they were straight. But later in life, many of these men (in this example) will tell you that they always liked the same-gender, even though they tried hard not to (counseling, hormone therapy).

So if the reverse-indoctrination doesn’t work for a gay guy/girl trying to be straight, do you really think “gay indoctrination” (whether intentional or subtle) works on someone who is trending toward heterosexuality? I just don’t see it in my experience.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rustico] I think there is enough content in my post in this thread for you to see what I mean? The example of the mother from Shadowfax’s link? There are much more severe cases of parents and others messing with the sexuality/gender identity of preschoolers. It’s emotional abuse with an predictible outcome.That kind of thing makes for an indoctrination in my mind. When politics covers this up I call that an indoctrination and a crime.

Kids come into life vunerable as to identity formation and social function in many factors. Kind of like when a soldier goes to war. Homosexuality is a type of PTSD reaction that children acquire to unusual circumstances, subtle and extreme. I don’t want to codify reinforcement of that with Homoagenda and resulting politics based social engineering.

Homosexuals should have the same protections as anyone, else but promotion via a special class because of an acquired “identity” is wrong, even if most of them can’t change, or are thrilled to be gay.[/quote]

No, no, no. Kids aren’t vulnerable to indoctrination regarding sexual orientation. My family background is a rebuttal to your theory. My sister and I have different fathers, but the same mother. I am straight (and never had any interest in same gender) and she is a lesbian. Not irrefutable proof of genetics but definitely not a datapoint for “nurture.”

Let’s except out the victims of incest or other abuse, because that is not what we are talking about here. That is a class all it’s own.

In cases where people independently identify, you have a wide range of childhood experiences. I can’t quote you a study, but I am sure I could find one, but from my own life experience, there are tons of examples of gay men, for instance, who played football or cops and robbers as children or participated in other “manly” activities with moms and dads who expected them to be and act straight. Some enjoyed these activities/upbringing and it had no influence on their sexual preference. Others experienced this it in a reverse of what you are saying–to please their parents and society to seem more masculine, even though they never found much enjoyment in it. Maybe they even got married to a woman and had a couple kids to persuade everyone, even themselves, that they were straight. But later in life, many of these men (in this example) will tell you that they always liked the same-gender, even though they tried hard not to (counseling, hormone therapy).

So if the reverse-indoctrination doesn’t work for a gay guy/girl trying to be straight, do you really think “gay indoctrination” (whether intentional or subtle) works on someone who is trending toward heterosexuality? I just don’t see it in my experience.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rustico] I think there is enough content in my post in this thread for you to see what I mean? The example of the mother from Shadowfax’s link? There are much more severe cases of parents and others messing with the sexuality/gender identity of preschoolers. It’s emotional abuse with an predictible outcome.That kind of thing makes for an indoctrination in my mind. When politics covers this up I call that an indoctrination and a crime.

Kids come into life vunerable as to identity formation and social function in many factors. Kind of like when a soldier goes to war. Homosexuality is a type of PTSD reaction that children acquire to unusual circumstances, subtle and extreme. I don’t want to codify reinforcement of that with Homoagenda and resulting politics based social engineering.

Homosexuals should have the same protections as anyone, else but promotion via a special class because of an acquired “identity” is wrong, even if most of them can’t change, or are thrilled to be gay.[/quote]

No, no, no. Kids aren’t vulnerable to indoctrination regarding sexual orientation. My family background is a rebuttal to your theory. My sister and I have different fathers, but the same mother. I am straight (and never had any interest in same gender) and she is a lesbian. Not irrefutable proof of genetics but definitely not a datapoint for “nurture.”

Let’s except out the victims of incest or other abuse, because that is not what we are talking about here. That is a class all it’s own.

In cases where people independently identify, you have a wide range of childhood experiences. I can’t quote you a study, but I am sure I could find one, but from my own life experience, there are tons of examples of gay men, for instance, who played football or cops and robbers as children or participated in other “manly” activities with moms and dads who expected them to be and act straight. Some enjoyed these activities/upbringing and it had no influence on their sexual preference. Others experienced this it in a reverse of what you are saying–to please their parents and society to seem more masculine, even though they never found much enjoyment in it. Maybe they even got married to a woman and had a couple kids to persuade everyone, even themselves, that they were straight. But later in life, many of these men (in this example) will tell you that they always liked the same-gender, even though they tried hard not to (counseling, hormone therapy).

So if the reverse-indoctrination doesn’t work for a gay guy/girl trying to be straight, do you really think “gay indoctrination” (whether intentional or subtle) works on someone who is trending toward heterosexuality? I just don’t see it in my experience.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rustico] I think there is enough content in my post in this thread for you to see what I mean? The example of the mother from Shadowfax’s link? There are much more severe cases of parents and others messing with the sexuality/gender identity of preschoolers. It’s emotional abuse with an predictible outcome.That kind of thing makes for an indoctrination in my mind. When politics covers this up I call that an indoctrination and a crime.

Kids come into life vunerable as to identity formation and social function in many factors. Kind of like when a soldier goes to war. Homosexuality is a type of PTSD reaction that children acquire to unusual circumstances, subtle and extreme. I don’t want to codify reinforcement of that with Homoagenda and resulting politics based social engineering.

Homosexuals should have the same protections as anyone, else but promotion via a special class because of an acquired “identity” is wrong, even if most of them can’t change, or are thrilled to be gay.[/quote]

No, no, no. Kids aren’t vulnerable to indoctrination regarding sexual orientation. My family background is a rebuttal to your theory. My sister and I have different fathers, but the same mother. I am straight (and never had any interest in same gender) and she is a lesbian. Not irrefutable proof of genetics but definitely not a datapoint for “nurture.”

Let’s except out the victims of incest or other abuse, because that is not what we are talking about here. That is a class all it’s own.

In cases where people independently identify, you have a wide range of childhood experiences. I can’t quote you a study, but I am sure I could find one, but from my own life experience, there are tons of examples of gay men, for instance, who played football or cops and robbers as children or participated in other “manly” activities with moms and dads who expected them to be and act straight. Some enjoyed these activities/upbringing and it had no influence on their sexual preference. Others experienced this it in a reverse of what you are saying–to please their parents and society to seem more masculine, even though they never found much enjoyment in it. Maybe they even got married to a woman and had a couple kids to persuade everyone, even themselves, that they were straight. But later in life, many of these men (in this example) will tell you that they always liked the same-gender, even though they tried hard not to (counseling, hormone therapy).

So if the reverse-indoctrination doesn’t work for a gay guy/girl trying to be straight, do you really think “gay indoctrination” (whether intentional or subtle) works on someone who is trending toward heterosexuality? I just don’t see it in my experience.

[Shadowfax]

It is great that we got him–and I guess we don’t have much choice but to believe what we are told, that we did get him. I am grateful that it’s over but I don’t find much joy in it–I am grateful that the victims’ families will feel justice has been done.

I find our national reaction to the news a little unnerving. If you change the flags and the backdrop, it looks just like a riot in the middle east, just add a burning effigy of President Bush or Obama vs one of bin Laden… We are really not so different. I realize that people get some sort of primal reaction to the death of one’s enemy, but it’s hard for me to see this as anything but another link in a chain that never really ends. Don’t get me wrong, he needed to be taken out, I just don’t like to see 1) rejoicing in the streets over it that will 2) play in a loop in a recruiting video…

I think the burial at sea under Muslim law was a nod to those who will try to demonize America–it may turn a few minds away from that path, but the true psychos won’t care. The ocean is a big place, so it’d be hard to make a pilgramage to his “grave” as part of an initiation rite. And, again, all we have is the word of our government that all this was actually done. Given the secretive nature of the mission and the actors, we’ll never have “proof.” This will fuel the nut jobs for years to come–waiting to see how they try to spin it.

I think we need to launch a propaganda campaign and show how bin Laden spent his last days. In a suburb of the capital of Pakistan, with his wives et al. Not suffering in a cave somewhere “for the cause.” Maybe that will dissuade a few more recruits?

I don’t have anything to base this on but I doubt bin Laden has been leading al Queda for a long time. Most likely that organization has evolved and has taken on some other form. But he is the figurehead, at least for the American efforts, of who our enemy was. The challenge now is to figure out what the new al Queda (or whatever it is) looks like, be vigilant and more persistent than the enemy to prevent any further events.

[Shadowfax]

It is great that we got him–and I guess we don’t have much choice but to believe what we are told, that we did get him. I am grateful that it’s over but I don’t find much joy in it–I am grateful that the victims’ families will feel justice has been done.

I find our national reaction to the news a little unnerving. If you change the flags and the backdrop, it looks just like a riot in the middle east, just add a burning effigy of President Bush or Obama vs one of bin Laden… We are really not so different. I realize that people get some sort of primal reaction to the death of one’s enemy, but it’s hard for me to see this as anything but another link in a chain that never really ends. Don’t get me wrong, he needed to be taken out, I just don’t like to see 1) rejoicing in the streets over it that will 2) play in a loop in a recruiting video…

I think the burial at sea under Muslim law was a nod to those who will try to demonize America–it may turn a few minds away from that path, but the true psychos won’t care. The ocean is a big place, so it’d be hard to make a pilgramage to his “grave” as part of an initiation rite. And, again, all we have is the word of our government that all this was actually done. Given the secretive nature of the mission and the actors, we’ll never have “proof.” This will fuel the nut jobs for years to come–waiting to see how they try to spin it.

I think we need to launch a propaganda campaign and show how bin Laden spent his last days. In a suburb of the capital of Pakistan, with his wives et al. Not suffering in a cave somewhere “for the cause.” Maybe that will dissuade a few more recruits?

I don’t have anything to base this on but I doubt bin Laden has been leading al Queda for a long time. Most likely that organization has evolved and has taken on some other form. But he is the figurehead, at least for the American efforts, of who our enemy was. The challenge now is to figure out what the new al Queda (or whatever it is) looks like, be vigilant and more persistent than the enemy to prevent any further events.

[Shadowfax]

It is great that we got him–and I guess we don’t have much choice but to believe what we are told, that we did get him. I am grateful that it’s over but I don’t find much joy in it–I am grateful that the victims’ families will feel justice has been done.

I find our national reaction to the news a little unnerving. If you change the flags and the backdrop, it looks just like a riot in the middle east, just add a burning effigy of President Bush or Obama vs one of bin Laden… We are really not so different. I realize that people get some sort of primal reaction to the death of one’s enemy, but it’s hard for me to see this as anything but another link in a chain that never really ends. Don’t get me wrong, he needed to be taken out, I just don’t like to see 1) rejoicing in the streets over it that will 2) play in a loop in a recruiting video…

I think the burial at sea under Muslim law was a nod to those who will try to demonize America–it may turn a few minds away from that path, but the true psychos won’t care. The ocean is a big place, so it’d be hard to make a pilgramage to his “grave” as part of an initiation rite. And, again, all we have is the word of our government that all this was actually done. Given the secretive nature of the mission and the actors, we’ll never have “proof.” This will fuel the nut jobs for years to come–waiting to see how they try to spin it.

I think we need to launch a propaganda campaign and show how bin Laden spent his last days. In a suburb of the capital of Pakistan, with his wives et al. Not suffering in a cave somewhere “for the cause.” Maybe that will dissuade a few more recruits?

I don’t have anything to base this on but I doubt bin Laden has been leading al Queda for a long time. Most likely that organization has evolved and has taken on some other form. But he is the figurehead, at least for the American efforts, of who our enemy was. The challenge now is to figure out what the new al Queda (or whatever it is) looks like, be vigilant and more persistent than the enemy to prevent any further events.

[Author]

Posts