Rape a Child, Get a Pell Grant (it's true)

[Classic Iconocl]

THE FOLLOWING CONVERSATION, TRANSCRIBED FROM MEMORY, TOOK PLACE BETWEEN TEXAS SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON'S LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT AND MYSELF IN 2005.

"Hi, I'm one of Senator Hutchinson's constituents. I'm calling in regard to the Higher Education Act of 1998."

"Yes sir."

"Well, I was reviewing the text of this act, and I was wondering, if I get convicted of possessing a marijuana cigarette, does this mean I'll lose all my federal financial aid to go to college?"

"Yes sir, you will."

"Okay. Well suppose I'm convicted of...oh, I don't know...raping and murdering a child. Can I still get financial aid for school?"

"Um...er... Yes sir, you can. I can already see where you're going with this. It doesn't sound like equal justice."

"No sir, it sure doesn't."

"Well, we don't want federal tax dollars going to support the drug habits of students."

"When you say 'habits', does that include alcohol?"

"No."

"Tobacco?"

"No."

"How about prescription drugs?"

"No."

"Gambling?"

"No."

"Prostitution?"

"No."

"Junk food?" (http://www.WaronJunk.com)

"No, only illegal drugs. We have a real problem with public funds buying illegal drugs."

"I can understand that perspective. But you have no problem with federal tax dollars going to purchase the knife, rope and duct tape the predator will use on his next victim? No problem with buying videotape for the child pornographer?"

"Um... Okay. I see your point."

"I have just one final question. Do you think that cutting off access to education is an effective way to deal with drug abuse and addiction?"

"No. No sir, I don't. But I can't speak for the senator."

"Well do you think you could speak to the senator?"

"Yes, sir. That I can do."

NEEDLESS TO SAY, I NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM SENATOR HUTCHISON'S OFFICE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REPOST THIS FAR AND WIDE!

www.Building-Block.org (http://www.building-block.org)

[ChrisLove]

hang on.....is this a joke?
I think if you were convicted of raping and murdering a child then you would be in prison and not getting aid for school would hardly be an issue?

Also you have presented this as if someone could win a grant by killing a child but actualy child murder is just one of the many criminal offences that is not covered by this law.

Either the original post is one of the stupidest in the history of the internet or its ironic and I am a twat. Either way, there is a lot of sucking going on here.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm assuming: If and when you get out (Not likely, I would hope) you would be eligable.

I don't know if this is a big thing, I doubt it is, but the letter of the law makes a distinction for drug users, explicity.

All conjecture, but it sounds about right.

[Classic Iconocl]

hang on.....is this a joke?
I think if you were convicted of raping and murdering a child then you would be in prison and not getting aid for school would hardly be an issue?

Also you have presented this as if someone could win a grant by killing a child but actualy child murder is just one of the many criminal offences that is not covered by this law.

Either the original post is one of the stupidest in the history of the internet or its ironic and I am a twat. Either way, there is a lot of sucking going on here.

You are correct. The list of offenses that do not disqualify someone from receiving a Pell Grant includes homicide, aggrevated assault, bomb threats, rape, child molestation, etc. The only crimes that disqualify a person are those involving illegal drugs. Priorities, huh?

The only sound of sucking I hear is the reverberations of sick child rapists getting NO JAIL TIME AT ALL for their crimes!!!

Don't believe me, sucker? CHECK THIS SHIT OUT... (http://www.building-block.org)

And before you call my writing stupid again, do your homework. This is happening all over America. Aren't you glad our officials are keeping the marijuana consumers locked up?!?!

[ChrisLove]

You are correct. The list of offenses that do not disqualify someone from receiving a Pell Grant includes homicide, aggrevated assault, bomb threats, rape, child molestation, etc. The only crimes that disqualify a person are those involving illegal drugs. Priorities, huh?

The only sound of sucking I hear is the reverberations of sick child rapists getting NO JAIL TIME AT ALL for their crimes!!!

Don't believe me, sucker? CHECK THIS SHIT OUT... (http://www.building-block.org)

And before you call my writing stupid again, do your homework. This is happening all over America. Aren't you glad our officials are keeping the marijuana consumers locked up?!?!


The problem with your post is that it does not make it clear exactly what you are upset about.

Are you upset that convicted drug users can not get these Pell Grants or are you upset that there is a possibility that a convicted child murderer might one day get released from prison, find that they meet all the academic criteria for receiving a grant,get accepted in a place of further eduction (despite their criminal past) and receive a fairly small government grant?

You then go on to make some hysterical point about jail terms for child rapists and post a link to some boring website - which seems like spamming to me. Also I dont believe it was you that had that conversation you described, I think you are just reposting it (spamming the board).

Your arguement was incoherent and poorly formed, that is all I was pointing out. Perhaps you should address issues like why you think convicted criminals should be ineligable for the grant or why you think drug users should be. Why do you think that further punishments are required after a convict is released from prison and their debt paid? Do you think that the prison system is insufficient punishment? Why? What should be done instead?

If your purpose is to highlight the very important issue of child abuse or the work of the people behind your link - why not approach it directly, explaining what they do and why you believe them to be a good cause instead of just copy pasting garbage?

[sab0tage]

I thought it was just pointing out the ridiculousness of some laws and legislations and just used an example to back up the point:confused:

[Classic Iconocl]

The problem with your post is that it does not make it clear exactly what you are upset about.

Are you upset that convicted drug users can not get these Pell Grants or are you upset that there is a possibility that a convicted child murderer might one day get released from prison, find that they meet all the academic criteria for receiving a grant,get accepted in a place of further eduction (despite their criminal past) and receive a fairly small government grant?

You then go on to make some hysterical point about jail terms for child rapists and post a link to some boring website - which seems like spamming to me. Also I dont believe it was you that had that conversation you described, I think you are just reposting it (spamming the board).

Your arguement was incoherent and poorly formed, that is all I was pointing out. Perhaps you should address issues like why you think convicted criminals should be ineligable for the grant or why you think drug users should be. Why do you think that further punishments are required after a convict is released from prison and their debt paid? Do you think that the prison system is insufficient punishment? Why? What should be done instead?

If your purpose is to highlight the very important issue of child abuse or the work of the people behind your link - why not approach it directly, explaining what they do and why you believe them to be a good cause instead of just copy pasting garbage?

Nothing in my original post was copied and pasted. It was my actual (transcribed from memory) conversation with the Senator's assistant, and I made it an open copyright just because I want people to know about it and share it, which they have. This piece has floated all over, but it's mine.

In answer to your question, I'm upset about both issues, because it points to the fact that our legislators have prioritized regulation of personal health and morality over public safety and protecting our children.

I'm also outraged that we have such glaringly unequal and disproportionate justice in this country. I'm a survivor of extreme child abuse, including child pornography, and I've given testimony of my experiences to legislators, college students, and fellow survivors across this nation, trying to get the laws changed so that people who sexually assault children are not immediately upon conviction released back into open communities amidst children.

I don't think the prison system (as it exists now in America) keeps our communities or our children safe. Take any person, lock them in a mere cage to be treated like animals, gang-raped, and beaten, and they will come out more angry and volatile than when they went in. I support secured and segregated therapeutic communities for any violent criminals who will one day be released back into society. My main issue isn't punishment or revenge. It's stopping predators from sexually assaulting children and commiting acts of violence in our communities.

I'm also a drug policy writer, a novelist, and the youngest user of therapeutic cannabis in the nation, having first been given it when I was two years old. So naturally, both issues of child welfare and drug policy reform are dear to me. I thought this conversation would illustrate the connection. And personally, I don't believe that any person should be denied access to education, as that does not assist in realizing what should be our main goal, reducing violence and protecting our children.

I'm not so much proposing solutions, but I'm asking questions. And though this is an admittedly cheap jab, the next time you make argument that my "arguement" is incoherent and poorly formed, you might want to check your spelling.

Your Iconoclast,

Christopher Largen

[Classic Iconocl]

One more item...

Child predators across this nation are receiving NO JAIL TIME for their crime and are upon conviction released right back into communities with children. It's happening all over (http://www.building-block.org), while our jails fill with people convicted of nonviolent drug crimes.

We know that children who are sexually assaulted are 4 to 10 times more likely to develop a substance abuse issue as they try to self-medicate symptoms related to depression, anxiety, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. So why is our society willing to lock up nonviolent rape survivors who get addicted to illegal substances, but not violent predators? Sounds like nothing more than a gulag that bigotry built.

[DJ_Skrilla]

I have gotten maryj possession charges (in oregon) its just a violation (like a traffic ticket) and $500-1000 fine. And I still got federal aid after that... plus mine was with-in 1000 feet of a school zone right after I turned 18! Doh.

[Classic Iconocl]

I have gotten maryj possession charges (in oregon) its just a violation (like a traffic ticket) and $500-1000 fine. And I still got federal aid after that... plus mine was with-in 1000 feet of a school zone right after I turned 18! Doh.

A conviction related to illegal drugs does not automatically disqualify a student, as along as the conviction was removed from the legal record, or if they completed a licensed treatment program.

But interestingly enough, the same qualification for obtaining treatment and therapy does not apply to child molesters, rapists, and other violent criminals. Only to those convicted of drug offenses. The disparity is a disturbing reflection of the priorities of our officials.

I can show you courts where prostitutes got sentenced to jail time, but child molesters got probation. If that doesn't indicate that personal morality is being prioritized over public safety, I don't know what does.

[DJ_Skrilla]

Does it suck to live in Texas? I bet they call u unpatriotic and worse for saying anything about precious W.

[Classic Iconocl]

Does it suck to live in Texas? I bet they call u unpatriotic and worse for saying anything about precious W.

It sucks and it doesn't. The part of me that enjoys a fight really likes being in the belly of the beast, but I'll admit that it does feel like living in the midst of a Christian jihad (or was that crusade, I get them confused). Pro-Bush bumper stickers abound, as do prefab churches. However, there is a libertarian streak in Texas (philosohical, not so much partisan) that reveres independence and common sense, so I've got plenty of friends down here.

And for the record, I'm a proud independent. Those Republicans who truly adhere to principles of smaller government and more local control, I support. Those Democrats who truly care about social justice, I support. But I think corruption runs rampant in both parties, so I'm inclined in some political races, given the sparse choice of major party candidates, to support third-party candidates.

I don't hate Bush. I just love the constitution, and the civil liberties it upholds. While the fundamentalist jihadists were planning on taking out our buildings, our government officials have claimed they lacked sufficient human resources to effectively analyze the immense amounts of intelligence data, in order to possibly prevent the attack. But in the months leading up to September 11th, the Bush administration had plenty of human resources to send dozens of agents into California to raid state-authorized medical marijuana clinics and hold shotguns in the faces of sick and dying people who were using cannabis under doctor's orders, even with 75% of all Americans supporting the patients' right to do so. And get this... During Dubya's first presidential campaign, he had told reporters that while he did not believe marijuana was medicine, he would support the rights of states to resolve the issue independently. Then he did the exact opposite, showing simultaneous disrespect for states' rights and democratic principles.

Just once I wold like to see a presidential candidate who would say, "My personal opinions about given sociopolitical and moral issues don't matter any more than yours. I am merely another citizen, who wants to be your servant. I will represent you, and will do what the majority of you tell me to do, so long as it does not violate the constitution." Let the people rule through their representatives, rather than allowing representatives to enforce their moral opinions and personal values upon the majority of the citizenry.

[ChrisLove]

Nothing in my original post was copied and pasted. It was my actual (transcribed from memory) conversation with the Senator's assistant, and I made it an open copyright just because I want people to know about it and share it, which they have. This piece has floated all over, but it's mine.

In answer to your question, I'm upset about both issues, because it points to the fact that our legislators have prioritized regulation of personal health and morality over public safety and protecting our children.

I'm also outraged that we have such glaringly unequal and disproportionate justice in this country. I'm a survivor of extreme child abuse, including child pornography, and I've given testimony of my experiences to legislators, college students, and fellow survivors across this nation, trying to get the laws changed so that people who sexually assault children are not immediately upon conviction released back into open communities amidst children.

I don't think the prison system (as it exists now in America) keeps our communities or our children safe. Take any person, lock them in a mere cage to be treated like animals, gang-raped, and beaten, and they will come out more angry and volatile than when they went in. I support secured and segregated therapeutic communities for any violent criminals who will one day be released back into society. My main issue isn't punishment or revenge. It's stopping predators from sexually assaulting children and commiting acts of violence in our communities.

I'm also a drug policy writer, a novelist, and the youngest user of therapeutic cannabis in the nation, having first been given it when I was two years old. So naturally, both issues of child welfare and drug policy reform are dear to me. I thought this conversation would illustrate the connection. And personally, I don't believe that any person should be denied access to education, as that does not assist in realizing what should be our main goal, reducing violence and protecting our children.

I'm not so much proposing solutions, but I'm asking questions. And though this is an admittedly cheap jab, the next time you make argument that my "arguement" is incoherent and poorly formed, you might want to check your spelling.

Your Iconoclast,

Christopher Largen


Ouch!

OK got to hold my hands up here and say I got you all wrong - many apologies, I thought it looked like spam and didnt think there was actualy much chance that you were Christopher Largen but am now convinced - I will now retreat and lick my wounds!

[Classic Iconocl]

Ouch!

OK got to hold my hands up here and say I got you all wrong - many apologies, I thought it looked like spam and didnt think there was actualy much chance that you were Christopher Largen but am now convinced - I will now retreat and lick my wounds!

And I apologize for my reactionary jabs. I've been getting more than my share of hate mail lately, and from some very nasty people, as I'm sure you can imagine. So it wears on me sometimes.

Pleased to joust with you, Chris.

cl