I'm 52 and had my crisis in September. Picked something patriotic. It's on my upper arm. I had a melanoma scare so it stays covered up mostly.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/21/2010 6:06:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked. |
Posted on 01/27/2005 12:50:51 PM PST by Dashing Dasher
Kelly Namowicz has a plan for the rest of her life.
"I want to go the California Culinary Academy in San Francisco," she says. "I want to be a professional chef."
But until now, there were 14 things standing in her way: tattoos that once almost covered her hands and arms, forcing her to wear long sleeves to job interviews to avoid being stigmatized.
"People judge you," Namowicz says. "People don't want to admit it, but it happens."
Now, the tattoos are almost gone, thanks to a city program called Clean Slate. It pays for laser treatments that erase the tattoos, and help wipe away the past. Namowicz says her kids helped her decide to do it.
"I want to be that positive role model for them," she says.
Now in its tenth year, Clean Slate is targeted at helping young people turn their lives around.
"You've got to be 14 to 25, live in San Jose, and you have to have gang-related tattoos in the exposed parts of the body," said project coordinator Juan Avila. "That's hands, neck, wrist, face, arms."
That made Victor Guizar a prime candidate. Just 24 years old, Victor has been incarcerated for a third of his life -- beginning at age 13. He has tattoos on his arms, chest, neck, and head. He even shows us some in his mouth. Most of his tattoos he got behind bars, and almost all are gang related. But he's leaving that life behind because most of his friends are drug addicts, in prison, or dead.
"I told my homies, 'My life is going to be different now,'" he says. "They said, 'We've been waiting for that.'"
The procedure just takes a few minutes. It stings, and leaves a mark like a sunburn that eventually wears off. But people like Victor Guizar say it's a small price to pay for starting over.
I love tattoos. I don't have any (I change my mind in the middle of making lunch, fercryinoutloud!)
But I have seen some gorgeous tats on people. I guess it depends on your POV. Granted, those with said beautiful tats were in jobs/vocations where they were either covered or totally appropriate.
I'm 52 and had my crisis in September. Picked something patriotic. It's on my upper arm. I had a melanoma scare so it stays covered up mostly.
My point is that conservatives should oppose this at every possible turn.
Your idea concedes the main point.
I digress.
So, should prisons have educational classes?
But the regular buttheads don't get free tatoo removal. Only the ultra-stupid gang-bangers get zapped for free. I mean, they obviously deserve it and your run-of-the-mill tatoo freak is outta luck.
Sad waste of a classic car.
You can use that logic to justify any government program. For instance - send criminals to Stanford instead of prison. It costs the same and will make them more productive members of society.
No. Not paid for out of the public purse.
If the prisoners are not locked down and it costs nothing for some prisoners to teach other prisoners, it's fine by me.
I would lock them all down however, but that's not the topic on this thread.
Lord.
You picked your screen name randomly, when inebriated, didn't you?
Ha! No, just playing devil's advocate. It's fun getting you guys wound up sometimes.
Sheesh - they've been doing it down here for years, thanks to a grant obtained by my Congresscritter, the insipid Lois Capps.
Yes, if you agree with me, you see.
If you disagree, you are agreeing with the liberals. It's a very old debate. And this isn't the thread, but suffice it to say there is no hard and fast evidence to prove your point. Both sides have their own stats. You are on the liberal side.
Not to mention, if we just give them all the money we spend on ATTEMPTING to rehabilitate them, they wouldn't need to be criminals. Like the other poster said, "send 'em to Stanford".
We used to call it "Relief" in the old days. There
was no shame in being forced to rely on others to
provide your family food/stamps. The shame came if you
stayed on it more than 6 months. Most people used
Relief as a stopgap...its original purpose. TOday
we call it Welfare. We have a lot of people seeking
to get on it and stay there through several generations!
But they feel no shame. The attitude now is what can
society do for ME?
LOL..made even uglier by tattoos.
What if someone has bad teeth or body odor? Should the taxpayers pick up the cost if it means a better job or promotion?
I think the gang-related tattoo programs are okay. Out here, some docs to it pro bono. A lot of these people start getting the tats when they are 12 or 13 and far too stupid to realize the impact it will have. Giving them a clean start seems like a good investment.
Now, your classic middle-class "statement" tattoos are something else. You tattoo a spider web around your neck in college, you pay for own removal with your McJob money.
My brother got a tattoo in the service (drunken buddy episode #13). Later when he wanted to get married, he felt very differently about it (it had a vulgar theme). It took about 5 or 6 visits, cost close to a grand, hurt like heck and left him with a kind of funny skin discoloration. You really have to think long term.
> For instance - send criminals to Stanford instead of prison. It costs the same and will make them more productive members of society.
I'm sorry... when did tatoos become illegal, again?
What this guy needs is government assistance. A little touch up and it is up up up the corporate ladder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.