Turning a Reply into a Post


Posted by Drew458    United States   on 02/02/2013 at 11:11 AM   
  1. Well, you would have to clear out all the good folks and nuke most urban areas to even come close to Fixing that Urban problem, so best to just let the Brown an Black have their turf and try to keep the Majority of those Urban places as safe and usable as possible. Considering how useful it is having cheap albeit illegal drugs and hookers available 24/7 you might actually think the Men in charge actually endorse this stuff in a “lets just ignore it but” way. I mean, every big city in the world has this kind of core infestation and maybe some don’t have the gun access ours do but the death and personal destruction take place everywhere anyway by other means. I’m bored now, history lessons always do this to me.

    Posted by Rich K    United States   02/02/2013  at  02:19 PM  

  2. Reality is racist.


    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   02/02/2013  at  08:42 PM  

  3. I sometimes wish I could convince myself that that gaming of the system was something I could do. But I just can’t. Who was that one young POS pulling in around $160K a year?

    Posted by cmblake6    United States   02/02/2013  at  09:07 PM  

  4. You want to know the real hoot of this article - there is a social study that started in Chicago in the 1920s (two guys I think - I was a sociology/psych major in college (the first two times)) - it went on well into the 70s - perhaps even the 80s (I know that one of the sons took over after his father died). The end result of this decades long study - that the higher the socio-economic status - the less crime there was. The city center started with poor whites and rural southern blacks and progressed into even hispanics. The statistic did not change at all, no matter what the color, as their education levels rose, as they made more money and moved from the city center - the crime stats went down - and continued to decline even further as they moved further away into progressively ‘better’ neighborhoods - NO MATTER THE RACE.

    So - to beat down crime,three things would be a great start:
    1) Actually put those who use guns in the commission of crimes in jail - no three strikes, life
    2) Actually improve the foundation core subjects of education in elementary school (reading, writing and of course arithmetic)
    and finally
    3) Get rid of all the ‘additional’ social services and just keep - providing gov cheese and healthcare, institute mandatory drug testing, limits on child bearing, generational, welfare to work/school

    You will find that quickly people will be more likely to improve their own standards, if they aren’t assured that Uncle Obama won’t cover the basics - forever. And that if they do use a gun - they won’t see free daylight until after they die.

    It used to be done, it can be done again - of course, the other factor not mentioned in these studies - is that during the time it went on, the people weren’t DENIED their 2nd Amendment RIGHT to bare arms.

    Studying history - who knew it could fix the crap going on right now, so damn easily.

    Posted by wardmama4    United States   02/03/2013  at  11:50 AM  

  5. Following up on WardMama’s post, there was an initiative a while back to establish ‘mixed-income’ neighborhoods. The idea was to move lower income families out of the inner city and put them in middle class neighborhoods (the lower income folks received subsidies from the federal govt.). The intended result was that it would break up the gangs, break the cycle of poverty, and encourage the lower income people to emulate and adopt middle income traits and values. The results were mixed.

    Some middle income neighborhoods strongly resisted (fear of decreased property values, legal challenges, etc.) and caused problems for the new residents. Some lower income families resisted. They wanted to stay ‘with their own kind.’ In other neighborhoods some lower income families adapted; others didn’t.

    I think the concept has merit. The gangs have power arising, at least in part, from numbers. Reduce the numbers, reduce the power. But the devil is in the details.

    Posted by CenTexTim    United States   02/03/2013  at  01:45 PM  

  6. "I think the concept has merit. The gangs have power arising, at least in part, from numbers. Reduce the numbers, reduce the power. But the devil is in the details”.

    And then Nuke the area skull

    Posted by Rich K    United States   02/03/2013  at  02:31 PM  

  7. Let me get this right, CenTexTim.

    Some government functionary thought it would be a good idea to transplant the problems of the inner city to the rich suburbs with a government subsidy? 

    That’s raving insanity at best.

    I thought Texas was smarter than California.  What happened, did too many of my neighbors move to Texas?

    The way to eliminate the problems of the ghetto is to aid the people in pulling THEMSELVES up, not giving away more freebees.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   02/03/2013  at  05:43 PM  

  8. @Rich K - the nuclear option is ALWAYS on the table.

    @Dr. Jeff - I agree, the way forward should be to help ghetto-dwelllers improve themselves.

    As I understood the program, the idea was that people are influenced by their environment. Moving them from an environment full of negative factors—gangs, drugs, unemployment, a cycle of poverty and dependency, etc.—and putting them in one with more positive role models and values would help them pull themselves up (get a better education, become more employable/productive, etc). The long term cost of the program would be offset by reduced welfare spending.

    What we’re doing now - handing out food stamps and unemployment checks right and left - definitely isn’t working. I’m willing to try anything that breaks the cycle that as led to second and third generation welfare families.

    If it doesn’t work, there’s always Rich’s way… machinegun (closest thing I could find to a mushroom cloud)

    Posted by CenTexTim    United States   02/03/2013  at  06:15 PM  

  9. "Efficiency and progress is ours once more
    Now that we have the Neutron bomb
    It’s nice and quick and clean and gets things done
    Away with excess enemy
    But no less value to property
    No sense in war but perfect sense at home”

    Dead Kennedys

    These people have to move themselves out of where they are, and develop the attitudes within that go with the move.  You can’t just transplant them and expect them to fit in.  They need to consciously leave the poison, or they’ll bring it with them.  I’ve always said I’m not moving, and I think I have a good location, but if they start putting these people in my neighborhood, I’ll be the first to head for the hills.

    Posted by Mr Evilwrench    United States   02/03/2013  at  10:03 PM  

  10. They have tried that mess here - providing ‘assistance’ to the former projects residents to move out a bit into ‘nicer’ areas. Those are now crime rising areas - and their longtime residents are screaming about crime or fleeing for their lives (our neighbors to the west). They have to start with the basics - education and solidifying the family unit to raise itself up - not even artificially ‘raising’ them works.

    Now most of the areas surrounding the core of the city are against this little failure of a social experiment. And meanwhile, the city council is still trying to figure out how to get their streetcar built even though the city budget is is the deep red, the voters voted against the levy to fund it and 73% of the city said they’d never use it.

    These idiots in gov never work to solve a problem, all they do is figure out ways to make every thing more costly and ensures it creates even more problems.

    Posted by wardmama4    United States   02/04/2013  at  05:43 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Blimey, Blighty, Bite Me

Previous entry: immigration usa

<< BMEWS Main Page >>