# Zero Tolerance



## OULobo (Nov 13, 2003)

In another thread the subject of improper punishments in schools was brought up. This got me fired up on a subject that has been a peeve of mine for some time. The idea of "zero tolerance" in schools. This is the policy of mandatory punishments for the all infraction of school rules regardless of the outcome, motivation, or severety. What is particularly disturbing is the government's(local, state and federal) reluctance to monitor and judicate these issues and the local school board's bull-headedness in refusing to admit their mistakes and reverse their decisions. 

I'll leave the subject open now for people to post opinions and examples while I get my examples ready to post.


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 13, 2003)

Zero tolerance?  I hate these two words.

I wish they would consider mitigating circumstances.  Consider age, experience, background, who they were with, intent, comprehension of policy, etc.

I wish we would go with the "case by case" policy instead of "zero tolerance" policy.  That would make more sense and be generally less destructive for all involved.  

I'm guessing litigation played a great deal into this change with society that caused this draconian approach.  However, "they" have to realize that being to the exteme with their blanket decisions can result in litigation too.

- Ceicei


----------



## OULobo (Nov 13, 2003)

Here are some resources. I'll admit that I am against zero tolerance so these are mainly "anti" opinions and fact sheets. I would have posted some "pro" resources also, but I had some trouble finding any. 

BTW this isn't because one is right and the other is wrong, I think it is because the "anti" cases are easier to spot because they can be pretty outrageous. 

Here you go:
http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/blzero.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16305
http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html
http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/08/29/zero_tolerance/index.html
http://www.ztnightmares.com/
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/zerotol/zero-tol.html


----------



## OULobo (Nov 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *I'm guessing litigation played a great deal into this change with society that caused this draconian approach.  However, "they" have to realize that being to the exteme with their blanket decisions can result in litigation too.
> 
> - Ceicei *



I agree, but the problem is that recently instances like Columbine have made it very easy for the schools to win on policy grounds because of the backlash experienced.


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 13, 2003)

You know, the idea of Orwell's "1984" book isn't too far off from how things are going today.

I wonder if a revolution would eventually have to happen to bring zero tolerance to an end?

- Ceicei


----------



## TheRustyOne (Nov 13, 2003)

We had zt for anything dealing w/ alcohol or ciggys in my high school. and yet, the allowable hem line of a girls shorts dropped from the middle finger when the arms are relaxed at the sides to the tip of the thumb. thats a good, what, two inches, which can be difference between shorts with you butt hanging out and just a lot of leg. and yet, spaghetti strap shirts and wildly dyed hair was so "distracting" to be worn. personally, i'd be more distracted with a girl's butt hanging out of her shorts than a lot of shoulder and back shown.

...and i still say the only reason i didn't get sent home for wearing a Bacardi shirt was because it lacked the bat.


----------



## OULobo (Nov 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *You know, the idea of Orwell's "1984" book isn't too far off from how things are going today.
> 
> I wonder if a revolution would eventually have to happen to bring zero tolerance to an end?
> ...



pick a response:

"Power to the People!! We want a change!"  

or

"Becareful people have diappeared for saying similar things as that." 

 

I agree its time for a change.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2003)

Oh come on, you guys mean to tell me we shouldn't be flogging 8yr olds who violated the no weapons policy by bringing in the plastic picknic knife to cut her chicken, or expelling and publically whipping through the streets of the kid who shared his inhalor (thereby saving his girlfriends life) and in doing so violated the districts drug policy?

Next thing you'll be saying is that we don't need to send all these little perverts in training to reeducation classes after they pervertedly hug each other....

:soapbox: 

(Note: I'm being sarcastic...  )


----------



## TheRustyOne (Nov 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Oh come on, you guys mean to tell me we shouldn't be flogging 8yr olds who violated the no weapons policy by bringing in the plastic picknic knife to cut her chicken, or expelling and publically whipping through the streets of the kid who shared his inhalor (thereby saving his girlfriends life) and in doing so violated the districts drug policy?
> 
> Next thing you'll be saying is that we don't need to send all these little perverts in training to reeducation classes after they pervertedly hug each other....
> ...




Damn straight! If they won't give us a knife on airline flights then why should those little picknickers have one! *slams fist down dramatically on table, table breaking, and falling on floor*


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 13, 2003)

I have a hard time looking at and bliveing all these people who think nothing "bad" will happen if they enforce "their" ideas on everyone else. 
some folks just have no idea what reality is, they live in a closed little world of "perfect" and "OH , we cant have that"


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by tshadowchaser _
> *I have a hard time looking at and bliveing all these people who think nothing "bad" will happen if they enforce "their" ideas on everyone else.
> some folks just have no idea what reality is, they live in a closed little world of "perfect" and "OH , we cant have that" *



Either that, or these same people think that everybody else is a blood-thirsty murderer that can't be trusted with even a nail clipper.  Better protect them from themselves.   

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> *pick a response:
> 
> "Power to the People!! We want a change!"
> ...



Indeed it is time for a change but who's going to initiate it? US? Some whacko militant outta Michigan or Montana or some other outta the way place? A special interest group? Who would now stand up to our government and say ENOUGH! And bigger question... will they listen? 
My oldest brother used to tell me that I don't help the democratic process by not choosing to vote, well gee bro, haven't found a candidate WORTH voting for... 
But he's right because as long as we keep voting these morons who make up these laws and re-elect them we're gonna get the zero-tolerance and other idiotcies that find their way into our day to day lives.
Power is a strange thing. We'll meet a good honest candidate with good and honest intentions while they're running for office (city, state, national) but seems more often than not the power that is behind those desks when they sit down...gets them by the throat/balls/wherever and makes it mighty hard not to let go or abuse. 
Only because IMO we give it to them by just whining and not instigating our consitution right to say NO to this or that bill. 

Remember folks... I LOVE MY COUNTRY... I got issues with our government.   It is time for a change indeed.  
:asian:


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 17, 2003)

> Either that, or these same people think that everybody else is a blood-thirsty murderer that can't be trusted with even a nail clipper. Better protect them from themselves


 You mean, everyone else ISN'T a blood-thirsty murderer?  Damn, that just blows my entire outlook on society out of the water. 

Zero tolerance translates to me as a policy put in place when institutions have been beleagured by so many lawsuits from people who do not know how to behave in public that even the slightest mis-step would lead to financial disaster that any step at all is out of the question.  It also reeks of laziness in as much as the investigative work to find the facts in a situation, to take the time to find out the "why" of something would require an actual effort.  That's not my job is the battle cry for these folks.  No, it may not be in your job description to break up a fight in the hallway if you're a teacher; not your job to come to the aid of a woman being stabbed on the sidewalk.  No, it's not in your job description..... but it should be in your character description.


----------



## Spud (Nov 17, 2003)

I'm not following you MACaver - 

Do you vote or not?


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Spud _
> *I'm not following you MACaver -
> 
> Do you vote or not? *



No he doesn't, according to what he said...



> _Originally posted by MACaver _*My oldest brother used to tell me that I don't help the democratic process by not choosing to vote, well gee bro, haven't found a candidate WORTH voting for... *



- Ceicei


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 18, 2003)

> My oldest brother used to tell me that I don't help the democratic process by not choosing to vote, well gee bro, haven't found a candidate WORTH voting for...


 All to often it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils.  But it must be done if any change is to happen at all.  'Course with the advent of the 'puter age we could just do away with congress, put up a website and have the public vote on everything bill by bill.:shrug:


----------



## Disco (Nov 18, 2003)

As was pointed out, were only voting for "the lesser of two evils".
They, the poeple that are in positions of power due largely to wealth, are allowing us to vote for one of the people they choose. We have the two party system, Dems/Reps. Have we ever seen anybody, other than the person "choosen" by the party leaders, run for any high office? You can have an Independent try to run, but it comes down to money and influence, which the Independent would not have. Your vote in reality means nothing, because of the Electoral college. How many persons have won the popular vote of the people and lost the election because of the EC vote. That's just an example at the high end of the spectrum. Big money runs this country and is running it into the ground. Everything in this country is for sale and is being sold off. Everyday in the news we hear about more and more American jobs are being lost because the corporate powers are making bigger profits with cheap oversea's labor. Eventually when there are no real jobs left in America and therefor Americans can no longer afford to buy anything, mabey just mabey then something might happen. Problem there is it's to late and the damage is not reversable. Our judicial system is just as bad. It's run by lawyers, set up by lawyers and all evolving around the allmighty dollar. I'm just stating what's in front of everybodies eye's. I love this country and have served in several ways. But in my opinion, I see our citizens being flushed down the toilet of corporate and political indifference and greed.
:soapbox:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2003)

Ross Perot.

1st time through, ran on own money...made significant dent in system.

2nd time through, laws had been changed preventing one using own money to run.  (We will ignore for a moment the mention of 'threats')


People forget that there are currently over 20 individuals in the running.  Find one n vote for em.  You are not limited to only two choices.  Yes, the candidate from the 'hot poker in the bum' party hasn't really got a chance, but hey, if he's your man (or gal) then go cast your vote.

After all....each vote cast does count, even if as a statement against the 'powers that be'.

Just, do your own thinking...and don't count on the comercials to tell it all.

:asian:


----------



## OULobo (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *As was pointed out, were only voting for "the lesser of two evils".
> They, the poeple that are in positions of power due largely to wealth, are allowing us to vote for one of the people they choose. We have the two party system, Dems/Reps. Have we ever seen anybody, other than the person "choosen" by the party leaders, run for any high office? You can have an Independent try to run, but it comes down to money and influence, which the Independent would not have. Your vote in reality means nothing, because of the Electoral college. How many persons have won the popular vote of the people and lost the election because of the EC vote. That's just an example at the high end of the spectrum. Big money runs this country and is running it into the ground. Everything in this country is for sale and is being sold off. Everyday in the news we hear about more and more American jobs are being lost because the corporate powers are making bigger profits with cheap oversea's labor. Eventually when there are no real jobs left in America and therefor Americans can no longer afford to buy anything, mabey just mabey then something might happen. Problem there is it's to late and the damage is not reversable. Our judicial system is just as bad. It's run by lawyers, set up by lawyers and all evolving around the allmighty dollar. I'm just stating what's in front of everybodies eye's. I love this country and have served in several ways. But in my opinion, I see our citizens being flushed down the toilet of corporate and political indifference and greed.
> :soapbox: *



Amen, brother, but there are signs of change. Money doesn't mean everything, atleast it didn't to Ross Perot. In the past elections there have been two examples of people from neither of the two popular parties having a huge influence. Perot and Nader, while not showing too much in the actual elections, showed that their candidacies influenced many to leave the traditional two parties. This is a start. In the last election the issue of the electoral college was brought to the attention of the public and there has already been action to abolish the outdated system. While I can't say the coarse we are on is bright I think it has the possibility of improvment. If there is one thing that terrifies the current rich and powerful it is the threat of revolution.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 10, 2003)

Whilst doing a little surfing, I came upon this site with some interesting examples and viewpoints. 

http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/blzero.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 10, 2003)

Its insane.  When I was a rugrat, I played 'war', used that most terrifying of kid weapons, the finger-gun.  I also was an affectionate lad, and on a few occations gave the bus-aide a peck on the cheek. 

My gods, I was a terrorist and a sex-offender.  Damn.  Oh wait, I like my caffine and have to take ibuprophen for migraines....I'm a drug addict too.  

Someone please lock me up, cuz I present a bigger threat to US Security than Saddam and Osama combined!

Careful though...I've got a nailclipper....better send in the marines!


----------



## Trent (Dec 10, 2003)

From what I've observed of "zero tolerance" policies anywhere they are due to "zero intelligence" and totalitarian policies.  If those who have been hired cannot be trusted to reason and make appropriate decisions then there is a much deeper problem, and zero tolerance is the simple-minded way to deal with it.


----------



## old_sempai (Dec 10, 2003)

The Electoral College?  

Do you know who belongs to it?  

Or how they are appointed?



PS

Do you know what type of retirement program is given to former US Congressmen?

Oh boy that's another hot, and eye-opening subject.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by old_sempai _
> *The Electoral College?
> 
> Do you know who belongs to it?
> ...





Taken from http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm


"How the Electoral College Works"

"The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates: 

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census). 
The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs. 
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. 
After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions 
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot. 

On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate). 
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district]. 
On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president. 
In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States). 
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress. 
The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president. 
In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office. 
At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office. 
Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics. "




This one is a little slanted, but it is taken from a Libertarian web site, so take that into account. 




Taken from http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=135

Libertarian Party Press Releases  
January 20, 1998

Lavish pensions can turn Senators into the $3 Million Man, new study reveals

WASHINGTON, DC -- Want to become a multi-millionaire? Just get elected to Congress and then retire, the Libertarian Party said today -- and lavish federal pension payments will turn your retirement years into an episode of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." 

This get-rich-quick scheme is revealed in a new report by the National Taxpayers Union, which finds that many politicians will pocket nearly $100,000 a year once they retire -- in addition to Social Security benefits. 

"Politicians have built themselves a golden parachute. The only problem is, it's our gold that's paying for it," said Libertarian Party Chairman Steve Dasbach. "These federal pensions give a whole new meaning to the phrase: Golden years." 

The taxpayers group, which calculated benefits for 29 Congressmen and Senators who have announced their retirement, found that many incumbents will make up to $98,694 a year from their federal pensions. 

As a result, many Congressmen will collect several million dollars over the course of their retirement, the study found. For example, the estimated lifetime benefits of Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), who will retire at age 56, will be a staggering $3.2 million. 

Congressman Vic Fazio (D-CA) will rake in $2.5 million; Congressman Joe McDade (R-PA) will pocket $2.3 million; and eight other retirees will make off with million-dollar-plus retirement packages. 

Why are the benefits so lavish? Because the same politicians who wrote the rules are collecting the benefits, said Dasbach -- and because they know that taxpayers will be stuck with the tab. 

"But, sadly, most taxpayers will never live as well as the Congressmen whose luxurious retirements they are funding," he noted. For example, with their $98,694 annual pensions, retired Congressmen will make: 

* Nearly three times the $37,000 median household income in America. 

"In other words, politicians will be making far more money for not working than ordinary Americans get for working," Dasbach said. 

* More than five times the $17,000 pension paid to comparable private-sector retirees, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. 

"The study found that Congressional pensions are so exorbitant that they would violate tax law standards -- if they were offered by a private company," Dasbach said. "But politicians get away with it because they exempted themselves from this law." 

* Ten times more than the average Social Security recipient. 

"The average monthly Social Security benefit is $765, compared to a mind-boggling $8,225 a month for Congressional pensions," said Dasbach. 

"But Congressmen aren't satisfied with these exorbitant pensions, so they made themselves eligible for Social Security benefits, too. When it comes to retirement, the U.S. Congress has picked the lock on the federal vault -- and they're helping themselves to handfuls of cash." 

One side effect of the pension plunder, Dasbach pointed out, is that it gives politicians more incentive to stay in Congress, since the longer they serve, the higher their pensions. 

"Unfortunately, this is the exact opposite of what most Americans want," he said. "Abolishing Congressional pensions would be a built-in term limits mechanism by encouraging politicians to get real jobs in the private sector with honest pensions. 

"Politicians already make $136,000 a year in office. There's no reason to continue paying them once they're out. It's time to retire these gold-plated pensions -- and slam the door on the Congressional millionaires' club." 


One more of interest. This one is taken from http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7573 a public forum on aviation. 

"Politicians Enjoy Sweet Retirement Package

Philadelphia Daily News - By Craig Linder - October 13, 2000

WASHINGTON - As politicians fight about the best way to repair Social Security, few members of Congress are looking to change their own retirement system. 

Members of Congress enjoy a generous two-pronged retirement system that combines Social Security with another, corporate-style benefit. All told, pensions for senior lawmakers can easily reach six figures. 

First of all, though, put to rest the rumor that your representative in Washington doesn't have to pay into Social Security. 

They pay 6.2 percent of the first $76,200 of their salary, just like everyone else. And like every other employer, the federal government matches the members' contributions - with your tax dollars, of course. 

But the real sweetener comes from the two additional benefit plans that members of Congress, like all federal employees, can choose to join. 

The first, called the Civil Service Retirement System, is available to members of Congress who took office before 1984. Under this plan, lawmakers receive Social Security and an annual pension based on their length of service and their highest salary while they were in Congress. 

Members of Congress who are part of CSRS pay 8.4 percent of their salaries to the plan and the government matches their contribution. A lawmaker who earned the base salary of $141,300 would pay a total of $16,592 to the system - $11,868 to CSRS and $4,724 in Social Security. 

Lawmakers who participate in the CSRS can choose to have their contributions and benefits from Social Security deducted from their contributions and benefits to CSRS, allowing them to take home more of their salary, but giving them fewer benefits when they retire. 

The second plan, which covers most current members of Congress, is the Federal Employees Retirement System. Roughly 2.8 million active federal employees, from senators to postal workers, participate in FERS, which pays $40 billion each year to 2.4 million retirees. 

Like the older congressional retirement plan, FERS provides retiring lawmakers with Social Security and a pension, but it also offers a defined-contribution plan, which is similar to a 401(k). 

Lawmakers who chose FERS receive a pension based on their years of federal employment and military duty and their highest salary level. They also enjoy an annual cost-of-living increase. 

Members of Congress pay 1.3 percent of their salary into the defined benefit plan and the government contributes about 11 percent of their salary to the fund each year. 

A member of Congress who earns the $141,300 base salary would pay $7,125 - $4,724 to Social Security and $2,401 to FERS. 

The 401(k)-like plan allows members to contribute up to 10 percent of their pre-tax salary into one of three investment plans. 

Both plans allow members of Congress to retire at age 50 if they have served the government for at least 20 years, or at age 62 after five years of service. 

How does Congress' retirement plan compare to the average American's? Pretty well, it would seem. 

The average pension income for a retiree in 1994, the most recent year for which data is available, was $3,500, James Delaplane, a vice president with the American Benefits Council, said. 

Compare that to the $50,203 annual average pension income of a retired member of Congress in 1998, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Or to former President Gerald Ford, who receives $261,000 a year in presidential and congressional pensions, according to the National Taxpayers Union. 

A 1998 report to Congress said that FERS is "generous" compared to retirement plans in the private sector. According to that report, only 8 percent of private plans offer the cost-of-living increase that federal employees enjoy, and only a few allow members to retire and receive a full benefit as early as the federal plan. 

Critics of government spending like the National Taxpayers Union have chafed at the "generous" retirement plans for years and have called on Congress to overhaul its system. 

"The best possible thing Congress could do would be to take a page from the evolving retirement plans of the private sector and eliminate the guaranteed pension," keeping only the Social Security benefit and the 401(k)-style plan, said Pete Sepp, the vice president for communications of the Alexandria, Va.-based nonprofit group. 

But members of Congress have been loath to tinker with their own benefits. A drive to overhaul the system following the "Republican revolution" of 1994 quickly fizzled. "



I know its a ton of reading, but it answers some of the questions that old_sempai voiced and that i think most peole should know.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 10, 2003)

El Stupido.

I think it's time that we give our system the chance to treat people like people. Every case is different. When your rules are too strict, then your stuck when it would be the right thing to break them.

My 2 pennies.

PAUL


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2003)

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------

