Hello Jt. Actually Johnny is my husband’s legal name, the name on his birth certificate. There is no hidden motive about it’s use.
As far as his education expenses go, all of his tuition and costs were paid by us, with the life insurance left to him after his mother’s death, and also by me using personal loans. None of his educational costs have been paid for with your tax money. The Pell grants came too late for him. One thing taxpayers ARE paying for is his continued incarceration. I guess if you feel that 3 1/2 more years of incarceration is a good investment of your tax dollars, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. Others of us feel that letting him into the workforce to be a tax payer himself is probably more fiscally responsible at this point.
Hi TP, You are correct, but fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with this in the true sense of the term. You’ve heard of the “prison industrial complex”, I suppose, at least that’s what I call it. Entire region’s economies depend upon the prison system and all the employment and economic stimulus it provides. Think of incarceration as an ongoing stimulus package for the economy. In those economies no one cares about how much it costs to incarcerate a prisoner for a year: the more it costs the better for the local economy.
If no public funds were used in John’s education then I stand corrected for what seems to be a false assumption. But was I right in assuming that John’s education came to him at far less cost than it would for a private citizen to access the same educational opportunities and institutions?
Did prison save John‘s life? It certainly did not kill him, in fact it inspired him to achieve far reaching goals. What would have happened to him had he not gone to prison? No one can answer that with any certainty. What is certain is that he thrived in prison and achieved an educational status beyond most Americans. Would he have accomplished this if he had not gone to prison?
Which brings us to the present moment. John, why not do the remaining time on your sentence and concentrate on furthering your education and wisdom while doing that.
You might want to come out of prison and become a street preacher preaching to young people and alerting them to what the consequences are of thinking what they are thinking and doing what they’re doing.
You’ve been there, done that. You know what was in your mind when you committed crimes. It seems unfair to you to not get early release when you are eligible, but the prison system is following the rules and are not denying you your legal rights. But life is unfair and with crucial choices every step of the way. I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a legal age for a child understanding right from wrong, but I believe it is considered to be quite young.
Knowing right from wrong. And not caring. Hmmm.
But I, if I had “Johnny“ on my birth certificate I would definitely call myself John and avoid the diminutive ”Johnny”. It’s not that there’s any malevolence in him going by the name on his birth certificate it’s just it’s a diminutive of the real name and it infantilizes an adult. That works on a subconscious level. It infantilizes a person. In other words, Johnny, garners less respect than, John. It does come down to controlling the narrative and to do that you must strategize every little thing.
I see it more as a marketing device or as narrative control or optics. Imagine these two sentences: “Mr. John Pippins testified today.” versus, “Johnny Pippins testified today.”
I think John Pippins sounds more respectful and favorable than Johnny.
Unless that’s become his trademark I would drop the Johnny and use Mr. John Pippins as my legal name If I were him.
I’m the kind of guy who likes to win. You guys are running a good campaign: I wish you the best of luck. I’m on your side.
Hello Jt. Actually Johnny is my husband’s legal name, the name on his birth certificate. There is no hidden motive about it’s use.
As far as his education expenses go, all of his tuition and costs were paid by us, with the life insurance left to him after his mother’s death, and also by me using personal loans. None of his educational costs have been paid for with your tax money. The Pell grants came too late for him. One thing taxpayers ARE paying for is his continued incarceration. I guess if you feel that 3 1/2 more years of incarceration is a good investment of your tax dollars, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. Others of us feel that letting him into the workforce to be a tax payer himself is probably more fiscally responsible at this point.
Hi TP, You are correct, but fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with this in the true sense of the term. You’ve heard of the “prison industrial complex”, I suppose, at least that’s what I call it. Entire region’s economies depend upon the prison system and all the employment and economic stimulus it provides. Think of incarceration as an ongoing stimulus package for the economy. In those economies no one cares about how much it costs to incarcerate a prisoner for a year: the more it costs the better for the local economy.
If no public funds were used in John’s education then I stand corrected for what seems to be a false assumption. But was I right in assuming that John’s education came to him at far less cost than it would for a private citizen to access the same educational opportunities and institutions?
Did prison save John‘s life? It certainly did not kill him, in fact it inspired him to achieve far reaching goals. What would have happened to him had he not gone to prison? No one can answer that with any certainty. What is certain is that he thrived in prison and achieved an educational status beyond most Americans. Would he have accomplished this if he had not gone to prison?
Which brings us to the present moment. John, why not do the remaining time on your sentence and concentrate on furthering your education and wisdom while doing that.
You might want to come out of prison and become a street preacher preaching to young people and alerting them to what the consequences are of thinking what they are thinking and doing what they’re doing.
You’ve been there, done that. You know what was in your mind when you committed crimes. It seems unfair to you to not get early release when you are eligible, but the prison system is following the rules and are not denying you your legal rights. But life is unfair and with crucial choices every step of the way. I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a legal age for a child understanding right from wrong, but I believe it is considered to be quite young.
Knowing right from wrong. And not caring. Hmmm.
But I, if I had “Johnny“ on my birth certificate I would definitely call myself John and avoid the diminutive ”Johnny”. It’s not that there’s any malevolence in him going by the name on his birth certificate it’s just it’s a diminutive of the real name and it infantilizes an adult. That works on a subconscious level. It infantilizes a person. In other words, Johnny, garners less respect than, John. It does come down to controlling the narrative and to do that you must strategize every little thing.
I see it more as a marketing device or as narrative control or optics. Imagine these two sentences: “Mr. John Pippins testified today.” versus, “Johnny Pippins testified today.”
I think John Pippins sounds more respectful and favorable than Johnny.
Unless that’s become his trademark I would drop the Johnny and use Mr. John Pippins as my legal name If I were him.
I’m the kind of guy who likes to win. You guys are running a good campaign: I wish you the best of luck. I’m on your side.