Hush on skin tone. Got it. Red Line attack-take 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To anywhere, with the money you save by working. I would support a moving grants program as well. There are many more jobs in some areas than in the inner city. However, ultimately I would prefer law abiding people stayed and revitalized the inner cities, and I would prefer successful people moved in rather than people moving out--but to do that you need to mitigate crime and improve infrastructure (which I'm fine with spending on). But not one without the other. We pretty much wiped out the Italian mafia on the Eastern seaboard with heavy policing. Why do inner cities deserve less?

And don't forget to pack your unicorn.

Right, I always forget that the urban power structures don't actually believe there are solutions, just an endless cycle they can perpetually feed off of. That's why we protest the police exclusively, rather than seek transparency, improved training and more partnership. Inner city Baltimore or Chicago is no place you would live, but what are your ideas? I think it's time for a Marshall plan for high crime low income areas, it's a serious idea. Because what else has worked? What do you want? More same same? And the victims of the roving bands of thugs whether in the same neighborhood where people are terrorized or on metro or bus are just the cost of doing business? What are your solutions?

I don't know where you got that idea from this exchange of posts.

What is my plan? Well, given that the problem is poverty, my solutions involving lessening poverty and mitigating the effects of poverty.

What do you think the Marshall Plan was? It wasn't a military occupation.

[Anonymous]

The Marshall plan first established security, then governed and rebuilt infrastructure. You want the latter without the former two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Marshall plan first established security, then governed and rebuilt infrastructure. You want the latter without the former two.

Please read up on the Marshall Plan.

[Anonymous]

And how about maximize opportunity rather than mitigate poverty? You know, it's actually OK to be poor. Many adjunct professors are poor, but lead rich lives and aren't terrorizing people. All liberals want is the long term solution of 'mitigating poverty' . How about saying that work and education are great ways to mitigate poverty and then work backwards to create the conditions so as many people can tap in as possible? Half the drop outs I worked with in DC left DCPS due to the chaos and insecurity in the schools--but someone like you would kick and scream at any attempts to impose order and protect these kids right to learn as 'heavy handed'. A training I was in advised that tapping a kids' desk with a pencil can be construed as physical menacement. Meanwhile, 'mainstreaming' and 'inclusion' has brought kids into the classroom who can throw desks and the teacher and students have to file out. We have moved so far in the direction of protecting individual rights that we don't protect the groups' rights. Wake up. Something is askew. Your airy fairy idea that the solution is 'mitigating poverty' is the unicorn. You can't do that in chaos.

[Anonymous]

Please argue with somebody who is actually making these points you're attacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Marshall plan first established security, then governed and rebuilt infrastructure. You want the latter without the former two.

Please read up on the Marshall Plan.

I'm guessing they had pacified the regions first. or am I just imagining that we were the victors in WWII and set certain conditions?

"Quotes regarding Marshall Plan.

Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.

Speech at Harvard introducing the Marshall Plan, June 5, 1947"

[Anonymous]

Why did my bernie goetz comment get deleted? It is very relevant - if these incidents continue, it will happen.

[Anonymous]

Is there a point at which Democrats, who have administered these cities and tried to 'mitigate poverty' for fifty odd years (with untold money flowing through) want to tweak what they're doing a little? How about in addition to advocating (fair housing, social services etc) also attaching expectations--to everything? For example, you can have free housing and food assistance in exchange for your kids being clean and in school and fed, your apt being clean too with no nefarious activity? You will also need to be enrolled in X program. And there will be checkins and inspections. To me, this would be money well spent. A true 'long term' investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a point at which Democrats, who have administered these cities and tried to 'mitigate poverty' for fifty odd years (with untold money flowing through) want to tweak what they're doing a little? How about in addition to advocating (fair housing, social services etc) also attaching expectations--to everything? For example, you can have free housing and food assistance in exchange for your kids being clean and in school and fed, your apt being clean too with no nefarious activity? You will also need to be enrolled in X program. And there will be checkins and inspections. To me, this would be money well spent. A true 'long term' investment.

First, remember that the largest "reform" to welfare came under a Democrat. Second, how would you defend removing housing or food assistance from children because their parents were behaving badly? What would happen to those kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I offered solutions in the deleted thread. In a nutshell:

Criminal mischief should result in immediate enlistment in the military. No go home and pack. Hold them and arrange for immediate enlistment. No second chances. First offense and you're gone. Unless you scare these kids they will not change. Their parents will not (or have tried and failed) to raise them to be productive members of society. Jailing them results in hardened criminals so it makes a bad situation worse.

-AA woman here who realizes that there is no redeeming some kids without immediate swift and harsh action.

Honestly, I think this shows a lot of disrespect for the men and women in uniform. We don't need violent criminals filling the ranks of our armed forces, particularly as so much of the job of an enlisted soldier is to engage with civilians in war zones. That you think the military - a proud tradition with many qualified and educated Americans - should be treated as a de facto penal colony shows how much you think of the armed forces.

+1

I am not the pp. I am a conservative who has a son in the military.
Perhaps the pp has so much respect for the military that she knows the military can actually turn some of these kids around. The military DEMANDS respect from those who are in the military - perhaps she believes this “tough love” of sorts is something these kids need because their parents have not been successful. They learn respect, discipline, and are expected to obey their chain of command.
I’m not sure making mandatory service for criminally mischievous kids is the answer, I am just trying to see her point.

I'm that pp and that's exactly my point. I think the military would do an excellent job. Jail is about profit, NOT rehabilitation. Should we just jail everybody or should we actually try to come up with solutions to turn things around. Many of these teens are young enough to turn things around, if given a fighting chance. But, it takes getting out of their environment and away from the kids who influence negative behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I offered solutions in the deleted thread. In a nutshell:

Criminal mischief should result in immediate enlistment in the military. No go home and pack. Hold them and arrange for immediate enlistment. No second chances. First offense and you're gone. Unless you scare these kids they will not change. Their parents will not (or have tried and failed) to raise them to be productive members of society. Jailing them results in hardened criminals so it makes a bad situation worse.

-AA woman here who realizes that there is no redeeming some kids without immediate swift and harsh action.

Honestly, I think this shows a lot of disrespect for the men and women in uniform. We don't need violent criminals filling the ranks of our armed forces, particularly as so much of the job of an enlisted soldier is to engage with civilians in war zones. That you think the military - a proud tradition with many qualified and educated Americans - should be treated as a de facto penal colony shows how much you think of the armed forces.

+1

I am not the pp. I am a conservative who has a son in the military.
Perhaps the pp has so much respect for the military that she knows the military can actually turn some of these kids around. The military DEMANDS respect from those who are in the military - perhaps she believes this “tough love” of sorts is something these kids need because their parents have not been successful. They learn respect, discipline, and are expected to obey their chain of command.
I’m not sure making mandatory service for criminally mischievous kids is the answer, I am just trying to see her point.

Instead of shipping kids out, how about bringing the military in? Do you think a retired general who administered a sector in Baghdad couldn't restore some order?


I'm that pp and that's exactly my point. I think the military would do an excellent job. Jail is about profit, NOT rehabilitation. Should we just jail everybody or should we actually try to come up with solutions to turn things around. Many of these teens are young enough to turn things around, if given a fighting chance. But, it takes getting out of their environment and away from the kids who influence negative behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I offered solutions in the deleted thread. In a nutshell:

Criminal mischief should result in immediate enlistment in the military. No go home and pack. Hold them and arrange for immediate enlistment. No second chances. First offense and you're gone. Unless you scare these kids they will not change. Their parents will not (or have tried and failed) to raise them to be productive members of society. Jailing them results in hardened criminals so it makes a bad situation worse.

-AA woman here who realizes that there is no redeeming some kids without immediate swift and harsh action.

I think you're on to something. Immediate consequences. It's the only remedy.

It really is the only answer. You can save some with enrichment programs but the vast majority of these kids (who are violent prone) aren't interested in that sort of stuff. No mentor/big brother program will fix it. Arresting them just creates another generation of fatherless children (because many of these teens/young adults have children). I think the military would be an excellent resource to rehabilitate delinquents.

And again I ask you, since the earlier thread was deleted, why do you feel that military service is punishment? And how would our military be affected by including all these young people who are forced to be there and don't want to serve?

I answered your question. It's not about punishment, but behavior correction.

You seem to think that millions of kids are going to end up in this sort of enlistment. Hell, no. Once they realize the consequences are harsh, swift and real, you'll start to see a dramatic change. It's because of second chances and loose laws that cause these kids to think they're above the law.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the responsibilities of an enlisted soldier. This isn't WWII where you can send someone to the front lines and have them shoot away until they get shot themselves. Today's soldiers are operating in populated areas where the "enemy" is embedded and hiding among innocent men, women, and children. Someone with a penchant for violence and impulse control problems is basically the very last person who should be in the US military in 2015. Unless, of course, we are interested in seeing more Robert Bales.

You seem to believe that I'm recommending we enlist sociopaths. No. I'm talking about troubled youth who commit a certain sort of crime (assault without a weapon, flash mob style thievery, B&E without a weapon, etc). NOT kids who commit serious offenses that should include a lengthy jail sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a point at which Democrats, who have administered these cities and tried to 'mitigate poverty' for fifty odd years (with untold money flowing through) want to tweak what they're doing a little? How about in addition to advocating (fair housing, social services etc) also attaching expectations--to everything? For example, you can have free housing and food assistance in exchange for your kids being clean and in school and fed, your apt being clean too with no nefarious activity? You will also need to be enrolled in X program. And there will be checkins and inspections. To me, this would be money well spent. A true 'long term' investment.

First, remember that the largest "reform" to welfare came under a Democrat. Second, how would you defend removing housing or food assistance from children because their parents were behaving badly? What would happen to those kids?

I do remember. So, how are those kids doing who are living with parents who are behaving badly? Should they be in that situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a military family, the idea that the military itself--funding cut, fighting with one hand behind its back--should now babysit petty criminals is laughable to me. On the other hand, I do think our inner cities resemble war zones and we could absolutely have a military/civilian solution in a place like Chicago or Baltimore: send in a "surge" of National Guard (we can't send in the military due to posse comitatus unless we change our laws) to deal with the Isis like thugs who shoot children in alleys, and then a 50 year Marshall plan. Top-down. Tell people who choose to live there exactly what to do. I think the law abiding and productive would be grateful.

Who said anything about enlisting murderers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I offered solutions in the deleted thread. In a nutshell:

Criminal mischief should result in immediate enlistment in the military. No go home and pack. Hold them and arrange for immediate enlistment. No second chances. First offense and you're gone. Unless you scare these kids they will not change. Their parents will not (or have tried and failed) to raise them to be productive members of society. Jailing them results in hardened criminals so it makes a bad situation worse.

-AA woman here who realizes that there is no redeeming some kids without immediate swift and harsh action.

I think you're on to something. Immediate consequences. It's the only remedy.

It really is the only answer. You can save some with enrichment programs but the vast majority of these kids (who are violent prone) aren't interested in that sort of stuff. No mentor/big brother program will fix it. Arresting them just creates another generation of fatherless children (because many of these teens/young adults have children). I think the military would be an excellent resource to rehabilitate delinquents.

And again I ask you, since the earlier thread was deleted, why do you feel that military service is punishment? And how would our military be affected by including all these young people who are forced to be there and don't want to serve?

I answered your question. It's not about punishment, but behavior correction.

You seem to think that millions of kids are going to end up in this sort of enlistment. Hell, no. Once they realize the consequences are harsh, swift and real, you'll start to see a dramatic change. It's because of second chances and loose laws that cause these kids to think they're above the law.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the responsibilities of an enlisted soldier. This isn't WWII where you can send someone to the front lines and have them shoot away until they get shot themselves. Today's soldiers are operating in populated areas where the "enemy" is embedded and hiding among innocent men, women, and children. Someone with a penchant for violence and impulse control problems is basically the very last person who should be in the US military in 2015. Unless, of course, we are interested in seeing more Robert Bales.

You seem to believe that I'm recommending we enlist sociopaths. No. I'm talking about troubled youth who commit a certain sort of crime (assault without a weapon, flash mob style thievery, B&E without a weapon, etc). NOT kids who commit serious offenses that should include a lengthy jail sentence.

Instead of shipping kids out, how about bringing the military in? Do you think a retired general who administered a sector in Baghdad couldn't restore some order? The general could have these kids waking up at five, scrubbing graffiti. they could also get uniforms (which they would LOVE) and job training or education. The law abiding residents could proceed about their lives as normal.