The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In per capita incarceration.   1 in every 76 Oklahoman's is incarcerated in some capacity.  

Louisiana,
MIssissippi,
Georgia,
Alabama,
and Oklahoma.

(http://blog.nola.com/graphics/2009/03/PRISONS030309.jpg)

Sweet, finally I have a reason for my "We're #4" foam hand.

Looking at that map, it looks like we beat Texas too.

Hey, don't forget women!  Aren't we #1 in incarceration rates for women?

(Sometimes, being number one doesn't feel that great...  Is that what they mean by a pyrrhic victory?)

So, when California sends 800 prisoners to Oklahoma prisons, do they become "Oklahomans"?

Could mean we're #5 in a well-developed public/private prison system.

...but, I doubt it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TURobY

Looking at that map, it looks like we beat Texas too.

---

Yeah, 71 v 76.

Counting OU and OSU BB, that's 2 of 3.

I refuse to acknowledge Texas as a state.  Their petition for admission to the Union was denied twice.  Then they had the balls to try to succeed a few year later.  So the hell with 'em.

Either that or I just overlooked the largest contiguous state.

So we're #6!  Or 5.  Either way, it's pretty high.  

Our demographics are very odd in all manners.  2 urban centers accounting for 2/3rds of the state population.  The eastern half containing 9/10ths of the population.  By why Oklahoma would be 76 and New Mexico 90, or Kansas 120... I just don't get it.

Dang, foam hand stays in the attic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

So, when California sends 800 prisoners to Oklahoma prisons, do they become "Oklahomans"?

---

or (slightly related), who really believes no Oklahoma taxpayer money is going to support our mega prison industry?

Oklahoma, the conservatists shining city on a hill. Btw, arent a lot of those top states also states that get far more federal money than they put in, yet have prominent republicans decrying earmarks and the like?

Why is it Oklahoma, the state that should be the finest example of the results of conservatism has such poor rankings when it comes to; health, poverty, hunger, divorce, drug use, child neglect and abuse, obesity, tobacco use, crumbling infrastructure,infant mortality rates, etc. etc. etc.? On top of that we are blessed with oil and natural gas resources, great farming potential, etc. that many other states would give there eye teeth to have. That oil wealth has been like manna from heaven to this state. So that coupled with our "one of the lowest over all tax burdens", highly religious, very conservative nature... Businesses should be flocking here and expanding like crazy. Roses should fall like rain on our blessed state.  BUT, when you look at the facts that really matter, where the rubber meets the road, the end results for our peoples lives is... more misery, poor health and death than average?  Something akin to third world countries. How can this be? And do conservatives really want the rest of the country to be more like our shining example? Or is it because we are not yet conservative enough?

Reminds me of Afghanistan and the Taliban (speaking of limited government control and religious fundamentalism) or some other very conservative middle eastern countries. They will say much of their problems are from not being conservative enough, the punishments and laws not strict enough, people not being religious enough... We look at those countries and see that they obviously are going down the wrong path (I hope). Yet when people come here and see our stats and hear our politicians and leaders saying we need to be even MORE conservative to solve our problems, have harsher punishments, rail against gays, decry evolution as a myth, want to set up the 10 commandments at the zoo, want to teach "intelligent design"... How odd that must look. Of course some people will love it and say its wonderful lol. But again, the results of our beliefs, the facts of our way of life, are plain to see.

Oh, but we get to keep more of our holy dollars from going to taxes. Thats the kind of thing they focus on, get people riled up about, and speak up about over and over.  Isnt that what really matters? Who cares about things like child neglect and mortality rates, divorce, drug abuse, poverty, hunger, incarceration rates, a persons health, crime,,, Lets talk about taxes and limited government instead.  

I am not saying that liberalism is all right, and conservative thinking all wrong. But I cant help but look at these things and wonder?

 


   

Artist, It's due to Dems being in control of the Legislature for over half a century.

A Democrat in Oklahoma would be a Republican almost anywhere else. A Republican in Oklahoma is more likely a theocrat.

First, I'd like to think our excellent ranking is due to great law enforcement!!   ;D

But, I would also add:

1.  Do you realize what it takes to FINALLY get incarcerated in this state?  How many times you get arrested and convicted before you finally spend one day in the prison?  And when that day finally comes, who they have to release to make room for you?

2.  People only complain about Oklahoma's incarceration rate when that type of ranking comes out.  When they have become a victim of a crime, they cry when the offender doesn't end up in jail.  You can't win.

Perhaps, as it relates to common folk, but there's more moderate Repubs around than you credit.

And, OK's Dem Legislators have tended to act more like their national average counterparts than the public.

There's no grounds for placing any of OK's current problems (or accomplishments) on Repubs. Once the ultra right get through pounding a few issues, something good may happen, though. Bottled up too long.

Why are there so many people that need to be incarcerated in Oklahoma? Why is the crime rate so high in general? Are the laws stricter (to supposedly, better deter crime), or are there just more "bad" people? Or both. Haven't checked to see if its true, but heard someone say that the US has more people in prisons than China and Russia... combined.  And Oklahoma ranks as one of the highest incarcerating states?

There is a thread on another website where people talk about different cities homicide rates and keep a running tally for different cities around the world. Many US cities have rates that are much lower than Tulsa. But what floored me was when someone from some cities in Europe or Canada would post their current numbers. Copenhagen... pop 1,150,000,,,13 homicides for the entire year of 2008. Amsterdam...pop 755,000,,, 18.  Greater London.... pop 7,855,600,,, 153 homicides.  Evil, secular, socialist, high tax, government controlled, liberal, welfare state, gov controlled health care, European city? Conservative bastion, bible belt, limited government, pick yourself up by your bootstraps, individualist, Tulsa...pop 385,000,,,54 homicides last year.  Seattle 28, Austin 23.

Why are our infant mortality rates so high? Child abuse and neglect rates so high? Tobacco and drug use rates so high? Diabetes rates so high? Mortality rates in general so high? Rates of hunger so high? etc. etc.

Dems or Repubs in charge or not, this is a very conservative state, period. We have low taxes compared to many states and European countries.  Spend comparatively, very little on Liberal social programs, public schools, civic infrastructure, etc. Because we believe that government is not the answer, that its the individuals money and they can spend it more wisely than the government. That our lives will be better if we keep more of our money and let the individual donate to help the needy, better society, or fend for themselves. But again, the actual health and welfare ( and crime/incarceration rates) of our citizens don't seem to bear that out?

I think China/Russia probably kill a lot more prisoners than we do.

Poor prenatal care. Desperate/angry folks. Tobacco use is actually higher in Europe. Corn. Lack of universal health care leading people to avoid seeking care early. Lack of social programs to distribute food. (in your order)

What's up with listing corn?

Also, the Federal Government provides prenatal care free of charge.  They also have WIC and food stamps to provide food free of charge to expecting mothers, new mothers, and children.

Probably ignorance is the problem.  Explaining the high tobacco use, failure to use resources available, and the anger or desperation.

AHA! We have finally stumbled upon the truth of the matter. Corn. I should have known all along. 

(btw, I get your point, am just being silly)

HFCS is more likely to cause diabetes than plain old sugar.

The prenatal care is part of Medicaid, which leaves a lot of people behind who make too much money, yet don't make enough to afford health coverage of their own through their employer.

Additionally, the normal time limitations on food stamps mislead many people to believe they aren't eligible, even though they are thanks to their minor child.

Corn is one of the biggest dietary problems in the US.

Hmmm. This is news to me.

Why is corn such a problem?

I'm not being a smart aleck. I've always thought of calories being calories. Too many calories is the problem, not the source of them. Right?

Your body reacts to different sorts of sugars in different ways. Your body doesn't respond correctly to HFCS, which is in almost everything. Additionally, seeds are not as good for you as other sources of fats.

Put The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan next on your reading list. All will become clear.

Ahh.  That makes sense.  The problem is the CHEAP SUGAR, not the corn.  You can get cheap sugar from a surprising number of sources but the subsidies in the United States make Corn Syrup the cheapest of them all.

The new study (the name escapes me now) essentially confirms the basis for weight control hinges on calories in, calories out.  Other factors come into play (as you alluded to when you said your body processes HFCS differently), but it is the large number of cheap calories that is the real problem.  The study essentially destroys the basis for many popular diets - which have an end result of limited calorie intact to lose weight, not necessarily where those calories come from.

I had in my head an image of babies munching on corn or a claim that wheat grain is better than corn grain.  I was so very confused.  But I get it.  Government subsidized sugar = fat people and the problems associated with it (basically). 

While that's true for raw weight gain/loss, as I mentioned before, HFCS doesn't cause the same insulin response as table sugar, thus the link with diabetes.

If you were to manage to eat the perfect diet, all healthy foods, getting all the vitamins, minerals, nutrients, micronutrients, etc. the right number of servings of vegetables, fruit, fiber, omega 3 oils, fatty acids, etc. etc. your supposed to get in a day... you would end up eating more calories than the average person burns in a day.  So you would also have to get in a good amount of exercise. Which, in a perfect world would be what we would all do anyway.

Every time you eat something that is devoid of nutrition and has calories, those calories are going to be too many. But what often happens is even worse. People eat the twinkie INSTEAD of the servings of fruit for instance. So what you end up with is your body not getting the nutrients it needs to function, yet being asked to process crap (literally and figuratively lol). The building blocks of your body are weakened and unable to function optimally (lacking the nutrients), yet are asked to do more work (processing the chemicals, dyes, various and sundry manufactured "food" products, extra calories, etc. that are in HFCS or plain ol sugary, fake foods) .

Aaaand, on top of that things like sodas, the carbonic acid actually leaches minerals and such out of your body (and off your teeth). They not only dont add anything good, and add bad, but also take away good stuff from you.  Plus, you should be drinking tea "unsweetened lol". There are a myriad of health benefits from drinking tea. New study just out shows its likely to reduce strokes by 20%, and the more tea you drink, the higher that percentage.  But even here, there is only so much liquid (milk, wine, tea,) that your likely to drink in a day, so anything bad, like sodas, means your even more likely to leave out something good. Heck, I am almost convinced that you should leave out plain water lol. Any time you would drink water, drink tea instead.

Asaand, on top of that, many nutrients need their "counterparts" in order to be effective. There are fat soluble and water soluble vitamins for instance. The fat soluble vitamins in order to work, need the right amounts and types of dietary fats to latch on to or they are worthless. Banannas go with milk, each has a complimentary amino acid that the body uses to make a certain protein. Corn and Beans are a complimentary food that native Americans have put together for ages because together, they are more nutritious than apart. They each have components that when eaten together the body can take and make important building blocks from. White rice is missing lysine, add beans or peas and your body has both the amino acids it needs to build an essential protein.
Legume + whole grain = rice and beans
Legume + dairy product = chili and cheese
Whole grain + diary product = pasta with cheese
Dairy product + nuts/seeds = yogurt with sunflower seeds

We even try to remedy inbalances or play up potential "complimentary nutrients" by adding things to certain foods.
Calcium and vitamin D in Orange juice (vitamin D helps regulate calcium and phosphorous), folate in breads, iodine in salt, probiotics in yogurt.

Many foods you need to eat to get good nutrients from, also have some potential negatives. But when balanced with its "opposite", the negative is cancelled out. Fiber can reduce bad cholesterol. The "French Paradox" creme broule balanced out with a glass of wine lol.  The Chili and Cheese combo above balanced out with some fruit. 

Those are just some examples of the "balance" in a balanced diet. Fake food with HFCS unbalance, that balance. No one food has all the nutrients your body needs. Replacing good foods with bad creates several negative synergies.



Btw, does anyone know why we put lemon juice on fish?

Because it tastes good! ;) (I prefer lime, though)

Aaaar limey! Yousa gonna walk the plank for that thar wrong answer.   hint hint

Ok, ok. To prevent scurvy. ;D

Because the pirates did it!

Ok, I give lol.

 From wikipedia....."  In 1740, citrus juice (usually lemon or lime juice) was added to the recipe of the traditional daily ration of watered-down rum known as grog to cut down on the water's foulness. Although they did not know the reason at the time, Admiral Edward Vernon's sailors were healthier than the rest of the navy, due to the daily doses of vitamin C the sailors received.[8] However, it was not until 1747 that James Lind formally proved that scurvy could be treated and prevented by supplementing the diet with citrus fruit such as limes or lemons.[3] "

Thats how the tradition of putting lemon juice or lime juice on fish came about. It was to help prevent scurvy in sailors.  Thus ends this thread hijacking. :-)

TulsaArtist, this thread is interesting and all, but after five years of listening to board discussions and forum discussions and like, is that everyone is good at nothing but running Oklahoma into the ground based on rankings and lists, and not a goddamn thing about what they would do to make Oklahoma better.

Based on my observations, Oklahoma haters, as I have come to call them, are useless and self-loathing.  Let's not turn this into another useless conservatives vs. liberals bullshit argument. 

Well, I for one am glad to hear that I am worthless and self loathing.   I note you failed to raise a suggestion on what we can do to make Oklahoma better in regards to the prison population.  I doubt simply failing to mention problems will do a goddamn thing for making Oklahoma better.

IMHO, pointing out flaws is an essential step in improving them.  You are free to constructively add to this thread if you think it is worthless and self loathing.  Or you can call Oklahoman worthless self loathing persons who don't do anything to make Oklahoma better - which in and of itself might be construed as adding to the underlying problem you complain of.

I would decrease the number of people in prison or increase the population with people not in prison.  I think that would work.  ;D

I would start with not throwing people with weed in prison.  We need to worry about meth not about weed.  I have no idea what # of people would follow under that category.

I never said Oklahoma haters are worthless.  They are not.  But, they are useless in that everyime a ranking comes out, instead of offering solutions, they run Oklahoma into the ground.  That's it, nothing more.

Before we can offer solutions, we need to take a constructive approach as to why the incarceration rate is high, even nationwide.  There are a myriad of possibilities to consider and narrow down.  Simple using the reason "Oklahoma is conservative" or "it's Oklahoma's conservative values" gets us absolutely nowhere.  Nor does writing Oklahoma off as damaged goods.

I read your comment as making a general statement about people whining too much about Oklahoma, advocating the position that we should pretend everything is sunny in Oklahoma.

I agree.  Political affiliation might be related to whatever causes the high incarceration rate as the correlation seems to be there, but certainly in and of itself it is not the reason.  I started this thread actually wondering (I believe I pondered this) WHY Oklahoma is significantly higher than Kansas or New Mexico - let along other states that are much lower.

Everyone that is in prison is not only costing us all money each day to maintain, they are also NOT contributing to society in any way.

Not whining doesn't advocate the position that we should pretend everything is sunny in Oklahoma.  The point I am trying to make is that everytime this ranking comes out and that ranking comes out, I never hear "WE NEED TO FIX THIS!!!"

Instead, I always hear "That's Oklahoma for you!" or "Don't come to Oklahoma, it sucks."  Yeah, accomplishing a whole lot there, isn't it?  This is based off of many message boards and blogs and any other online posting source that gives the general population one more place to grumble.

No one believes in Oklahoma enough to fight for this state and do what's good for Oklahoma.  Instead, people get carried away and start grabbing change of address forms for another state.  That is the point I am trying to drive home.

We should be using these rankings to our advantage, but we are not.  Your posting this thread in no way is the problem.  I am not calling you out cannon, I am just speak about people in general.

You're right. That is a cop-out. The problem is the chokehold the law and order types have around here. Desperate people do desperate things. Why do you think bank robberies are up?

There is a lot of "nobody should get a second chance" people.  So just as long as it isn't their favorite radio personality getting busted for using drugs.  They should go to prison forever, etc.

Okay, I'll say it "We need to fix this!!" And all the myriad of other poor rankings we get. Truth is that patience is running thin with the inflexible 1950's Okie attitudes that persist. If it takes pounding the rankings home till enough people are outraged at legislators who think persecuting gays, pot smokers, and flagburners is why we elected them; if it takes humiliating legislators who think putting the Ten Commandments on public property is a real issue deserving of their time, then so be it. Pound away.

Sitting on our bumpkins and telling everyone how friendly and warm we all are and how beautiful our state is has not gotten us much. Truth is, its not conservative politics as much as it is uninformed, theocratic, poorly educated demagogues who latch on to the conservative wing of the Republican party because they need such alliances to overcome a predominately moderate Democratic populace.  I look forward to state leaders who will face real problems and stop trying to run backwards towards the darkness just to get elected.