Criminals Killing Criminals

How sad.

The majority of homicide victims and suspects involved in the 39 killings that occurred in Milwaukee in the first six months of 2009 were no strangers to crime, according to a report released Thursday.About 75% of the victims and about 86% of the suspects had prior arrests, according to the report, compiled by the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission.

Victims killed in the first six months of 2009 had an average of 12.4 prior arrests, the report shows. Suspects in those homicides had an average of 12.8 prior arrests.

“We know the majority of homicides are occurring in the highest crime, dense areas. We know that the majority of them are somehow crime-related,” said Mallory O’Brien, director of the Homicide Review Commission. “If you’re not involved in the drug trade and you don’t have a criminal record, the likelihood that you’re going to be involved in a homicide or shooting is very small,” she said.

Clearly, it’s better for your health to keep your nose clean. The police chief seems to be a good job locking up bad guys.  But it seems as though it would be easier to prevent people from beginning lives of crime than it would be to convince someone who had been arrested 12.8 times to suddenly give up that life for a 9 to 5. 

So what’s your solution?  What can we (or Milwaukee or the state or whoever you think is responsible) do to prevent people from starting criminal behavior? Is the answer gun control, education, tougher laws, more police,...What do you think would help so that this trend does not continue? 

[Same rules as our last discussion, please]

1. Flynn wants to take away our guns.

   That is NOT the solution. Only the criminals will be armed in Flynn’s world.

   Enough said.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2009 at 2030 hrs




2. The only answer to crime, just like the only answer to the problems at MPS or whatever else plagues Milwaukee, is the development of stable, responsible families that raise their kids right.  Families willing to do what you and I do every day Owen, raise our children with love, care, and expectations and a sense of responsibility.

   The only thing that will increase the number families of this nature in Milwaukee, and therefore decrease the percentage (not necessarily actual number) of kids growing up to be crooks, is the development of good, family supporting jobs that offer opportunity to those already in SE Wisconsin, and attract families seeking opportunity to our state.

   What is at issue is what can be done by government, on our behalf, to encourage that.  That of course is where the discussion turns to disagreement between someone of my beliefs and the majority of people who read on comment on this blog.  But one thing I think we can agree on, whatever our state officials do, be it lower taxes for all or a targeted population, incentives for business investment and entrepenuership, raising the min wage, altering laws affecting labor rights, etc, etc, they are tinkering around the edges.

   We rarely debate policies that have the seismic impact on the economic future of this state that our mutual rhetoric would have an outsider viewing our discussions believe.  About all government can do is ensure a strong infrastructure to support business development and economic growth and support an educational system that develops an attractive workforce (again assuming you have parents reinforcing this effort).

   We all have our own opinions on how to go about these two objectives, and rightly get passionate about those ideas.  But the majority of what is debated about crime (gun control or not, more cops or not, longer or shorter sentences, etc) is all ways to address the symptoms of a failed economy.  None of it is a solution to crime.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2009 at 2048 hrs




3. Sorry, my comment should have been addressed to Wendy.  I apologize for assuming Owen posted the original question, force of habit.

   And if you couldn’t tell by the tone of my post, I think it is a great question.  Hope the discussion stays above board.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2009 at 2050 hrs




4. I have long advocated that teen pregnancy rates are tied to crime rates. Milwaukee has seen its teen pregnancy decline the last couple of years, which is good news for everybody. Now it may be awhile until this translates in less crime, but this is still an investment that needs to be made.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2009 at 2210 hrs




5. Shit, Lefty… here you go off and make sense and force me to agree with you

   Posted by Owen on July 16, 2009 at 2210 hrs




6. Dramatically scale back the war on drugs.

   Posted by Jed on July 17, 2009 at 0529 hrs




7. I am not sure there is an answer as lefty says, but he certainly has identified the problem and that is the only way to come to an effective answer. Kudos to you again lefty for identifying MPS as symbiotic to crime and families.

   Family structure, or the lack thereof. is the root cause (and therefore a prime solution)  of crime and education at any economic level.

   I was fascinated by the Michael Skakel murder trial where witness after witness talked about how Skakel was raised by the domestic staff and not by his parents. If lack of parental structure can turn a wealthy kid of means into a monster, the impact of no parental structure to a kid of no means is just as devastating, if not worse.

   How we address fixing the problem is worthy of another discussion too.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 0810 hrs




8. Dramatically scale back the war on drugs.

   A huge part of the solution.  Much of this violence is drug related.  Legalize drugs and watch a huge part of the problem disappear.

   How we address fixing the problem is worthy of another discussion too.

   On the surface who could argue with Lefty’s assessment that the breakdown of a family unit (and I’m not limiting “family unit” to traditionsl families) is the cause of so much of the problems we see in the inner city. 

   I mean lets face it, thats really what this is. An inner city problem.  If poverty was the problem, how come very poor parts of this country don’t have the violence issues the inner city does?  There has to be a cultural issue to it also. 

   How come on the south side where family units are very strong, there still is a violence problem? 

   So we know that just “poor” doesn’t make you violent.  Very poor parts of our nation prove that.

   We know that a strong family unit also doesn’t prevent criminal on criminal murder.

   The common element between the north side and south side is drugs.

   I should also ask.  Is criminal on criminal murder our biggest issue?  I’m more concerned on criminal against non-criminal crime.  I’ve got a problem with that.

   But as far as the economics go. I’ve never heard a stronger arguement for the breakdown of the family unit than as it relates to the welfare state and the cultural shift of fathers that support families and babies to the government supporting families and babies.

   People like to have sex.  Thats physiology.  When there are ramifications, people are careful to avoid pregnancy.  When you need 2 people to support a family financially.  Young women are careful about who they spread their legs for.  When you get a paycheck for having a kid.  No need to hold the male accountable.  No need to have him part of your life.  Young men can go around “spreading their seed” and there is no remifications.  Young girls don’t care.  Young men don’t care.  Stop the payout and make them START caring.  Make life HARD (oh my gosh, yes how cruel) and see people start to do what ONLY they can do and that is make better choices.  Consequence of behavior is ESSENTIAL.

   But the majority of what is debated about crime (gun control or not, more cops or not, longer or shorter sentences, etc) is all ways to address the symptoms of a failed economy.

   I disagree completely.  its NOT “the economy stupid” (not a personal shot there lefty, just a joke)

   I remember a few years ago when there was a HUGE HUGE demand for welders here in Milwaukee.  There was a pilot program that failed miserably.  They took something like 50 or 100 people from the inner city, PAID them to go to MATC and learn to weld, and then GAVE them each jobs at various companies around Milwaukee.  Bucyrus, P&H and others.  GREAT paying welding jobs.  something like $30 bucks an hour.  SO they trained them, handed them a great job, and I think after 6 months or something like that, only 7 of the 50 or 100 were still on the job.  (I might have the exact numbers off cause I don’t have the article in front of me but) the blatant reality was that the people just had NO work ethic and the biggest problem was they just didn’t even show up.  The supervisors at the companies where these workers were placed said it wasn’t about quality of work or anything else. it was SHOWING up.

   What is going to address laziness?  How do you cure the REAL problem of lack of motivation? 

   When you really dig deep in the issue, people do a GREAT job of complaining and framing the issue on the economy, or the family unit, or any other number of factors, but the reality is that the motivation and drive to get up in the morning and WORK cannot be legislated.  It cannot be ‘entitled’ to you through government payouts. 

   Liberals hate the “tough love” approach.  They don’t want to admit that the only thing that will ever get someone to do something is if they HAVE to dig deep within themself.  People are their own worst enemy. Its been that way since the beginning of time.  Now, in the new millenium, there is so much willingness of government and politicians to create dependency and entitle people to something for nothing, the problem gets exacerbated.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 0949 hrs




9. I agree with Lefty, with an addition:

   STOP making criminals the victims.  Start making people accountable, from childhood, for their actions and the consequences of making bad choices.  Personal responsibility is also key.

   And it will help with having cohesive, responsible families that do what families are supposed to do.  Right now we encourage a lot of people to have kids out of wedlock and we especially encourage fathers to ditch their families.  That has to stop in order to reduce crime.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 0950 hrs




10. When the economy was booming, milwaukee had more murders than they do know that the economy is worsening.  The last 2 years, milwaukee has seen significant decreases in the number of murders.  I guess its not the economy???

    2005 = 122 murders
    2006 = 130 murders
    2007 = 105 murders
    2008 =  71 murders
    2009 =  39 in the first 6 months

    As the economy tanked, murders DECREASED?

    Would someone please find a different SCAPEGOAT than blaming the economy?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1014 hrs




11. xxpilot -

    I actually don’t disagree with much of what you say.  I didn’t elaborate too much in my original comment, but the point I made about decreasing the percentage of criminals, not necessarily the raw number of criminals, by becoming a place with good paying jobs, was a nod to your point.

    Some people, and it is more than most of my liberal friends would like to admit, are either just f’ing stupid and therefore do dumb ass things, or so far along in a life of failure that they can’t be rehabilitated.

    To me the goal is to disrupt crime from taking root and dominating an area, because you can’t eliminate it entirely.  With the excpetion of the Allied Drive area, for those of you familiar with Madison, there has been a lot of success in this town of forcing crime to move around the city before it totally envelops a neighborhood.  Now Madison is starting to get to a size that those tactics aren’t going to work so well if someone doesn’t start offering some decent paying low skilled jobs for all the people moving to this little utopia of Government, University and Insurance business based economy, but that’s another issue.

    But my larger point is that when there aren’t people in the community willing to stand up and say no, this isn’t how it is going to be here in regrds to crime, well then, there becomes little the government can do to fix it.  And I think those kind of people are the first to leave when the jobs go, and therefore that is the root of the problem.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1015 hrs




12. But my larger point is that when there aren’t people in the community willing to stand up and say no, this isn’t how it is going to be here in regrds to crime, well then, there becomes little the government can do to fix it.

    Truer words were never spoken.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1100 hrs




13. Thre are plenty of people willing to stand up and say “this isn’t how its going to be here”  turn on the news. They are saying it every day.

    They are doing candlelight vigils.  There are “stop the violence” walks. 

    Mayor Barrett is going to churches in the inner city on sunday and imploring them to stop the violence.

    The problem is that if the inner city ammounts to 200,000 people or 300,000 people, It only takes 39 (in by 2009 figures) to establish these statistics.

    We can (hell, we may) have half of the inner city that TOTALLY is ready to stop the violence.  Hell, we may have 75% of the inner city ready to “stop the violence”.  At the end of the day, it won’t take many to wreak havoc.

    I suggest we afford people the right to protect themselves.

    I suggest we stop enabling people by paying them to do nothing.

    I suggest we introduce accountability by not paying women to have babies which will in turn make THEM hold the fathers accountable.  When fathers have to take care of children instead of run the streets they JUST MIGHT be too busy to commit crimes.

    I suggest we legalize drugs so that the MACHINE that provides a protected LUCRATIVE market for thugs dries up.

    I suggest we re-allocate ALL the police resources devoted to the never ending game of cat and mouse we call “the war on drugs” to arresting those who commit crimes against another person.  Robbery, theft, assault should be high priorities.  We don’t need HIDTA and the millions devoted to it.  We need to focus on solving real crime.  Malum prohibitum is sucking to many resources when we have Malum in se to deal with.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1119 hrs




14. xxpilot -

    I agree with your position on legalization of some drugs and eliminating the cost (in both dollars and lives) of enforcing the laws to fight the drug trade.

    As to your other points.  As someone who participated in few “Take Back the Night” walks in inner city Milwaukee 15 years ago (man I’m getting old) I know there are people who say that enough is enough, let’s clean up the neighborhood.  But the number of people of that are willing to stand up is far too few.

    Somewhat unrelated, but I think illustrative.  There are districts in Milwaukee where people are elected to the state assembly with fewer than 5,000 votes.  That is to represent 55,000 or 60,000 some odd people.  There is either nearly complete apathy or a feeling of being overwhelemed that is so great, that literally nothing can be done without a complete cultural change.

    Government policies, government intervention, private intervention won’t work.  Only a complete rebuilding of the neighborhoods, from an internal standpoint, meaning jobs on up, will solve this problem in my opinion.

    Finally, your characterization of welfare programs in this state and country is a bit outdated.  Let’s not forget that all participants in W-2 are required to work.  Yes some of those jobs are subsidized to encourage employer participation.  Yes there are subsidies to pay for child care while you work.  But there are many limits on program participation and the notion that just having kids is some sort of cash cow in state benefits is incorrect.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1143 hrs




15. Excellent comments Lefty. I agree with your comments that the effort must come from the community with the central city - otherwise nothing that government or money or anything else is going to do.

    How do we encourage the central city to embrace this option?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1144 hrs




16. Let’s not forget that all participants in W-2 are required to work.  Yes some of those jobs are subsidized to encourage employer participation.  Yes there are subsidies to pay for child care while you work.  But there are many limits on program participation and the notion that just having kids is some sort of cash cow in state benefits is incorrect.

    So that explains why black males in milwaukee have a 53% unemployment rate but not black females. 

    Women supporting men?

    As for cash cows:

    http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/382 83494.html

    With over half of black males unemployed, why don’t they at least stay home and babysit?

    I think my point remains.  We subsidize a system that enables lack of accountability and exacerbates the problems leaving a significant portion of the male population to run around and get in trouble.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1225 hrs




17. I don’t mean to minimize the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayer money xxpilot, but I do think some context has been lacking from the Journal/Sentinel series on child care subsidy fraud.

    It appears there is waste and or fraud to the tune of about 5 or 6 percent of the program.  Waste and fraud that should be addressed and cleaned up.  Of course 5 or 6 percent of a program that costs nearly $400 million a year is a lot of money, and reforms are needed.  But that also means that 95% of the time the money is being expended appropriately, and therefore 95% of the time people are following the rules that require them to work in order to obtain the benefits.  (Of course that is a statewide average, so I would concede it is fair to speculate that waste and fraud is higher in Milwaukee).

    I don’t even entirely disagree with your point.  I’ve been around enough impoverished, unskilled and unmotivated people to recognize that some are unequipped to achieve at even the most basic level to sustain themselves and support a family, and others are just freaking lazy.  Personally I want programs that provide a floor or “safety net” for those who fall into the former category, but have no idea how to exclude those who fall into the latter category from taking advantage of those programs once they are in place.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1239 hrs




18. John Galt -

    I found the Fountainhead to be a compelling book when I read it years ago.  A few weeks back I ran across Atlas Shrugged and started reading it.  I gotta admit, I’m about 300 pages in, and often find myself unmotivated to go on.  I’m just not that drawn to the story.

    Am I just in a lull in the story, with rewards to come if I keep moving forward?  Or did I just find a book that doesn’t speak to me?  So far I just see a lot of the same themes from Fountainhead, drawn out over a greater length, and feel like I know where this is going.  Am I too pessimistic?

    I assume by your name you’ll tell me I should push ahead, but a motivational argument would help.  It has been basically acting as a paper weight on the night stand for two weeks.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1248 hrs




19. It appears there is waste and or fraud to the tune of about 5 or 6 percent of the program.

    We could argue about the percentages all day, I don’t know where you figure on 5 or 6 percent, I think there is a lot of abuse of the system that wouldn’t amount to a legal definition of fraud or waste, but is still abuse.  a half a BILLION dollar program.  I’ll say again.  With over 50% of black males unemployed why don’t they babysit?  Answer… why WOULD they when child care is free.

    I’ve spent far too much time volunteering with interfaith to avoid being jaded when it comes to the propensity of people to “use” the freebies and good efforts of others rather than support themselves or take even the most basic measures to help themselves.  I’ve spoken with far to many people from the inner city who explain “how it works” to believe that 5 or 6 percent is all that waste and fraud accounts for.  But thats the problem with these issues.  How do you document “need”.  Who “can” and who REALLY “can’t”.  Its case by case (thats why I know from my work with interfaith so well) because when you get involved case by case you see that most people getting help are taking the ‘free way out’ instead of making an effort or using the resources they do have.  Just my experience.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1250 hrs




20. Some of the credit must go to Jessica McBride. There’s a definite correlation here.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1259 hrs




21. xxpilot -

    There was a state audit of the program in response to the MJS articles where random samples of cases were taken (I think 400 or so) and from the errors, waste and fraud they found they extrapolated $18 million for the whole program in improper payments based on documentation.  If you believe there are more, based on talking to people who believe they have found a way around the required documentation or whatever, that an auditor might not catch, I won’t argue with your personal experience.  I’m just quoting an attempt to document the instances.

    That said, I think our difference in opinion really revolves around how we view people who use these services.  In your opinion many are taking advantage of a system, and if that system was removed they would fend for themselves.  In my opinion a greater percentage would fall through the cracks because they are incapable of succeeding without these supports.  The rest I think, if they are capable people, would find another way to get by on minimal effort (primarily criminal enterprises) and may cost us more in the long run.

    In reality, I think you have greater confidence in people’s abilities, and greater questions of the character of some to do for themselves.*  In contrast, I think some people just don’t have abilities, and the problem is exaggerated by those people of questionable character who draw more attention for their wrong doing than the people who properly use these programs.

    *Disclaimer, I don’t think your some a-hole who doesn’t recognize people in real need.  I’m speaking in generalities about both of our positions, so I don’t mean to accuse you of anything or mischaracterize your position.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1337 hrs




22. Get people out of the city, that’s the solution.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1421 hrs




23. Side note: Lefty. I felt the same way. I felt the same about several Russian novels (including Fathers and Sons) and found out that later in life I was very glad I read them. In Atlas I even found the John Galt manifesto hard to get through, but even today I occasionally go back and re-read it.

    So, honest answer: The Fountainhead story was a better read but Atlas Shrugged is in a class by itself. A bitter pill but worth swallowing. I hope my answer/advice serves you well.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1423 hrs




24. I spent two years doing legal aid in prisons and that illuminated a couple of things about this situation for me. 

    The first was the lack of opportunity, whether actual or perceived, in the neighborhoods where these criminals generally come from.  I remember one kid, when I asked him as part of a registration process what his last job had been before he got locked up, looked at me like I was an idiot and asked if I knew where he had lived, because nobody around there worked, there were no jobs. 

    Coincidentally, I had moved into a duplex with my girl and some friends right on the edge of the neighborhood he was talking about, but it wasn’t until he said that that I took a close look at employment options deeper into the hood.  There was nothing in walking distance from most of the neighborhood.  I don’t mean nothing but fast food, warehousing and other low pay, low prestige jobs, but literally no functional, operating employers in the area.  That meant a bus ride of at least 20 minutes each way to work, probably more like 30-60 (the expense of which ate up an hour of minimum wage) into places that were not generally welcoming of people who looked like my clients. 

    A neighborhood guy and I were talking months later about employment in the area, and he described his old routine of taking a half hour bus ride to a fast food job that didn’t cover his bills, only to be robbed on his way home after more than half of his pay periods.  He chose a criminal alternative after that experience, which he subsequently gave up to be a counselor.  Not every place is like that, but awareness of the situation itself seems to lead to a perception of foreclosed options for people who live in similar circumstances.  Hardly a motivator to do the right thing. 

    In fact, it’s a motivator to do it the hard way, which is the other thing I discovered.  Crime isn’t easy, and it doesn’t pay.  Take these kids out of the streets, away from their peers, and put them in a place where confidentiality is ensured, and they’re a lot less tough.  You’ll probably find, like I did, that the majority of them don’t like being criminals.  It wasn’t glamorous, or fun, or easy in actual practice, though it probably appeared attractive from the outside.  It meant risking their lives for a tiny little payoff, then doing it again the next day, and the next day, and so on. 

    Most of them, especially after getting a taste of prison on top of all that, said they would have much preferred a mundane job where they weren’t at constant risk of death or incarceration.  Some of these were probably deathbed conversions, because everybody has regrets after they’re apprehended.  But I’m a pretty good judge of people, and I could tell that many of them never wanted to be in the life to begin with, but saw it as the only reasonable option for kids in their situation.  Again, that may or may not be the reality (I think it was in that case, for many, if not most), but just the perception of lack of opportunity was enough to inhibit these kids from exploring their options.

    These aren’t all sociopaths or savages, they’re normal (usually young) people in terrible situations doing what people do when they see no other options.  Not all people in that situation turn to crime, of course.  But enough do to make it pretty obvious that it’s more than just a series of individual bad decisions that occur by coincidence, and it will take a concerted effort to turn it around.

    But how do you get more opportunity in the hood?  I don’t know.  Economic development zones, police presence before, rather than after, bad things happen, city services that rival the rich neighborhoods, schools that are equal to those in other neighborhoods.  All of that would help.  But the most important thing that I think needs to be done to make crime less attractive in America, is also the least likely to happen.  We have to de-glamorize violence and crime in this country. 

    The big reason we have these problems is not solely due to the easy availability of guns, the remnants of racial segregation, or the huge disparity between rich and poor.  All those circumstances could exist without logically leading to a crime problem, if crime wasn’t looked at as an even remotely desirable pastime.  But doing this would mean eliminating crime and violence based entertainment, first and foremost, and that’s never going to happen, because those topics have fascinated us since we became a country.  There have been wildly popular anti-heroes since revolutionary days, into the lawless wild west, then the bank robbers and tommy gun gangsters, to the popular television, movies and music today. 

    America is a culture that thinks crime and violence are cool, and that would have to change if we really wanted to lead young people away from those things.  If we started portraying criminals as they really are - pathetic, scared kids doing stupid shit, and grownups who are incapable, whether because intelligence, disposition, or mental illness, of living and working in the real world like normal adults, I think that would have a profound effect.  Nothing sexy or interesting about most criminals, contrary to what the TV would have you believe.  But that means no more Tony Soprano or Dirty Harry movies, and the people who bitch about crime are often the same who refuse to make a single sacrifice, such as giving up their entertainment to change our culture.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 1432 hrs




25. There was a state audit of the program

    I don’t trust the state to police there own program.  Just based on logic and previous observations, The truth is of course I don’t REALLY know.  Its impossible to judge true “need” 

    America is a culture that thinks crime and violence are cool

    In reality, I think you have greater confidence in people’s abilities, and greater questions of the character of some to do for themselves.*  In contrast, I think some people just don’t have abilities,

    VERY interesting that you make this comment because in other discussions far removed from the internet and this blog, multiple people who I debate these issue with have made the same exact observation you just did.

    It is true. I TRULY believe in people. I think people are capable of SO much more then they believe they are.  And I think I’ve tested that theory.  Belief that you can suceed is the basis of suceeding. I know people can do it. I don’t think everyone can make 6 figures or more, but I think EVERYONE if they made smart choices could establish a nice life for themselves if they would first TRY, then learn to live within your means.  Recognize that happiness NEVER comes with more money.  If you aren’t happy making 30 grand a year you won’t be happy making 60 grand a year or 160 grand a year. If you can’t live within your means when you make 30 grand, you will struggle to live within your means when you make 100 grand.  Anyway, I’m running off on a tangent there.  Able bodied people are capable of so much more than they believe.  You pick 4 able bodied kids (and by able bodied assuming they don’t have a mental disability either)from the inner city who you are convinced don’t have abilities and I’ll turn them into very successful people. 

    I don’t think your some a-hole who doesn’t recognize people in real need. 

    I think you and i have always had respectful intelligent focused debate for quite some time on here.  As such, when I read comments you direct at me or your responses to things I’ve said, my proclivity is to not be defensive or insulted inany way. Instead I take everything from you as ‘spirited’ debate.  And I enjoy it very much.  Hopefully my comments back to you reflect the same respect and appreciation. 

    America is a culture that thinks crime and violence are cool

    Indeed. As I was pondering this thread while away from my computer running errands this afternoon I was reminded what a friend of mind that is a school teacher at an MPS school said to me. (don’t want to give the name of the school for her annonymity but…)  She teaches 3rd of 4th grade and when she goes around the classroom asking the kids what they want to be when they grow up the most common answer is “I want to be a drug dealer”.  Professional athlete and rapper are the next most common answers.

    There is definitely a cultural problem here.  When your role models are drug dealers and 2 careers that you have the odds of making it in of like one hundreth of one percent, you are not likely to discover your abilities.

    I’m back to some sure fire things I listed in #13.  Afford people the right to protect themselves (deals with the safety issues some have raised)  Of ALL places law-abiding people need the right to carry its in the inner city.

    Dry up the illegal drug trade by ending the war on drugs and re-allocating those resources to real crime (assault/robbery/etc)

    Create consequences for behaviors by ending the entitlements that allow young women to ‘not care’ if their baby daddy is around or not so they will be judicious in who they sleep with.  When young men find they need to HAVE a life (job, etc) to be attractive to a woman, they will suddenly find motivation they never knew they had)

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2009 at 2115 hrs




26. That’s a good question and I doubt I have all the answers.

    I think it starts with parenting and education.  The parenting part would have to come from society and bringing back shame. Right now there is no shame.  Everyone just blames it on the environment they were raised…we’re poor, we’re a victum bla bla bla. Well, many of us were raised poor and turned out fine.

    Second, education.  I think the schools should be run like boot camp. We all ready give them breakfast and lunch and now maybe even dinner.  So why not just keep the kids at school 24 hours 5 days a week so they can learn and receive a proper education.  Sure is’s drastic, but something has to be done.

    Third. This country doesn’t manufactur anything any more.  We need to get this country back to creating things.  This way we can get kids into trades for employment.  We need to stop spending, lower taxes, decrease regulations, reduce Unions so businesses will locate here and employ Americans.

    Lastly….bring back the church.  People need to have a better sense of self and what is really important.  A church is a community and a community that will help when you are down and out.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2009 at 0853 hrs