Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly- the gentrify crowd did this. You can’t just toss up row houses and close your eyes to the actual needs of the neighborhood. The problems of systematic/generational racism aren’t going to vanish simply because you bought an over priced home.
I see strong parallels between gentrifiers and climate change deniers. You think that you can muscle through any ill effects of your actions. Turns out- you are both wrong.
So keep pricing people out of the city… and see how that plays out for you.

It’s not so much the gentrification. It’s the fact that the gentrifiers mostly refuse to send their kids to the neighborhood schools which would have the biggest impact on improving AA test scores, outcomes, etc. Instead they flee for charters or privates and walk by the BLM signs on their stoops every day. They are guilty of the worst form of systematic racism, but they are totally clueless about it.

So parents who care about education should sacrifice their children? Do you realize the non-gentrified can go to charters as well?

OMG. So those of us who are choosing to send our kids to our neighborhood schools don't "care" about education and are "sacrificing" our children? Is that what you really think about us?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

The Republicans have to move on the gun debate. But at the end of the day, the most important factor by far in explaining disparities in all manner of life outcomes (poverty, unemployment, crime, education) is whether you were born out-of-wedlock. And we all know the statistics are not pretty. Until the Democrats are willing to have a conversation about this, the gunfire will continue.

Democrats are already pro-choice and in favor of policies that increase education, jobs, and alleviate poverty. So, what's your point? That they should be in favor of forced-marriage and polygamy?

I'm sincerely not following exactly what you think Democrats haven't done on these issues.

They should be in favor of policies that encourage stable families. Instead, Democrats have hitched their wagons to a BLM movement that is very publicly “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Fairly soon 90% of AA babies will be born out of wedlock. This is an existential crisis for our country. Available guns + no fathers = 16th & R. Wake up people.

Maybe if our government hadn't flooded black communities with crack and criminalized black men, their families wouldn't have been disrupted and the ripple effect that we are seeing would not be happening.

Not to mention white violence--what are you proposing to do about that? Are no white fathers absent?

So the 1994 crime bill that you say “criminalized” black men was written by Joe Biden (D), supported by dozens of prominent pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, had the support of black mayors (including Kurt Schmoke (D) of Baltimore) and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D) then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). It was signed by President Clinton (D). And now the same crowd is endorsing disrupting nuclear families.

Yet, somehow this is all the Republicans fault?

Mandatory minimum sentences for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.

DC already has a mandatory minimum for armed crime if the perpetrator has a prior violent crime conviction.

My understanding is that yes, hunger is an issue. The stats the Capital Area Food Bank quote are:

1 out of 10 residents of the metropolitan Washington region is food insecure.
Nearly ⅓ of them are children.

There was an article in the Post talking about how students have suffered and food insecurity via losing access to meals was part of it. I'm not a policy expert by any means, but I do think that the benefits from UBI would extend into the community greatly. Just looking at this one issue, people could then spend money in their communities instead of relying on school meals or food banks. Maybe shoplifting would go down encouraging more grocery stores to open, providing stable jobs. There is something to be said for the dignity of choosing and paying for your own food.

As for the issue of involvement with the drug trade, which I assume is what's fueling these shootings, my hope would be that with better options people would choose something else. No one wants to be terrified for their life as they walk down the street, or see their friends and loved ones hurt or killed. People with better options exercise them. That's why there's a Ward 9.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one solution that hasn't come up yet would be UBI. It gives families stability, maybe the chance to work one job and spend more time with their children. There would hopefully be fewer hungry kids, and less pressure to engage in crime like drug dealing which leads to violence. Everyone is discussing throwing more money at police, schools, the safety net, etc. UBI is at least a new option that empowers people to choose for themselves how they want to live without the overwhelming forces of poverty at play.

Are there really children going hungry in the DC metro area? I find that hard to believe with the numerous outreach programs. Even during the COVID shutdown, Fairfax County continued to deliver school lunches to students (and parents for a nominal fee.) I find it hard to believe that DC or Maryland didn't do something similar.

UBI will never be a sufficient answer because UBI will only provide the minimum. I strongly suspect that the people involved in these crimes are not interested in the minimum that society will give them. UBI might solve some problems, but it is no going to address this one. For instance, the latest shooting is speculated to be some sort of turf war. How does UBI provide more "turf" to these individuals?

I was browsing a DCPS website today and loads of regular food giveouts, including box meals with ingredients and all kinds of other stuff .

Murder rates by country.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

Anonymous wrote:I think one solution that hasn't come up yet would be UBI. It gives families stability, maybe the chance to work one job and spend more time with their children. There would hopefully be fewer hungry kids, and less pressure to engage in crime like drug dealing which leads to violence. Everyone is discussing throwing more money at police, schools, the safety net, etc. UBI is at least a new option that empowers people to choose for themselves how they want to live without the overwhelming forces of poverty at play.

Are there really children going hungry in the DC metro area? I find that hard to believe with the numerous outreach programs. Even during the COVID shutdown, Fairfax County continued to deliver school lunches to students (and parents for a nominal fee.) I find it hard to believe that DC or Maryland didn't do something similar.

UBI will never be a sufficient answer because UBI will only provide the minimum. I strongly suspect that the people involved in these crimes are not interested in the minimum that society will give them. UBI might solve some problems, but it is no going to address this one. For instance, the latest shooting is speculated to be some sort of turf war. How does UBI provide more "turf" to these individuals?

I have received calls from two of my Fox-watching relatives regarding this to ask if I"m OK because I'm apparently living in a war zone. Getting big play on Fox.

Anonymous wrote:I think one solution that hasn't come up yet would be UBI. It gives families stability, maybe the chance to work one job and spend more time with their children. There would hopefully be fewer hungry kids, and less pressure to engage in crime like drug dealing which leads to violence. Everyone is discussing throwing more money at police, schools, the safety net, etc. UBI is at least a new option that empowers people to choose for themselves how they want to live without the overwhelming forces of poverty at play.

This would do nothing about the plethora of guns in this country. UBI is great but it's not going to stop gun violence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

The Republicans have to move on the gun debate. But at the end of the day, the most important factor by far in explaining disparities in all manner of life outcomes (poverty, unemployment, crime, education) is whether you were born out-of-wedlock. And we all know the statistics are not pretty. Until the Democrats are willing to have a conversation about this, the gunfire will continue.

Democrats are already pro-choice and in favor of policies that increase education, jobs, and alleviate poverty. So, what's your point? That they should be in favor of forced-marriage and polygamy?

I'm sincerely not following exactly what you think Democrats haven't done on these issues.

They should be in favor of policies that encourage stable families. Instead, Democrats have hitched their wagons to a BLM movement that is very publicly “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Fairly soon 90% of AA babies will be born out of wedlock. This is an existential crisis for our country. Available guns + no fathers = 16th & R. Wake up people.

Maybe if our government hadn't flooded black communities with crack and criminalized black men, their families wouldn't have been disrupted and the ripple effect that we are seeing would not be happening.

Not to mention white violence--what are you proposing to do about that? Are no white fathers absent?

So the 1994 crime bill that you say “criminalized” black men was written by Joe Biden (D), supported by dozens of prominent pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, had the support of black mayors (including Kurt Schmoke (D) of Baltimore) and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D) then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). It was signed by President Clinton (D). And now the same crowd is endorsing disrupting nuclear families.

Yet, somehow this is all the Republicans fault?

If you read my post more carefully, you would see no mention of political parties. Now are you going to answer my question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

The Republicans have to move on the gun debate. But at the end of the day, the most important factor by far in explaining disparities in all manner of life outcomes (poverty, unemployment, crime, education) is whether you were born out-of-wedlock. And we all know the statistics are not pretty. Until the Democrats are willing to have a conversation about this, the gunfire will continue.

Democrats are already pro-choice and in favor of policies that increase education, jobs, and alleviate poverty. So, what's your point? That they should be in favor of forced-marriage and polygamy?

I'm sincerely not following exactly what you think Democrats haven't done on these issues.

They should be in favor of policies that encourage stable families. Instead, Democrats have hitched their wagons to a BLM movement that is very publicly “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Fairly soon 90% of AA babies will be born out of wedlock. This is an existential crisis for our country. Available guns + no fathers = 16th & R. Wake up people.

Maybe if our government hadn't flooded black communities with crack and criminalized black men, their families wouldn't have been disrupted and the ripple effect that we are seeing would not be happening.

Not to mention white violence--what are you proposing to do about that? Are no white fathers absent?

So the 1994 crime bill that you say “criminalized” black men was written by Joe Biden (D), supported by dozens of prominent pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, had the support of black mayors (including Kurt Schmoke (D) of Baltimore) and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D) then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). It was signed by President Clinton (D). And now the same crowd is endorsing disrupting nuclear families.

Yet, somehow this is all the Republicans fault?

Correct. Because F’ republicans.

Lost in this discussion is how the media (Hollywood, video games, news) sensationalizes and glorifies gun violence.

I think one solution that hasn't come up yet would be UBI. It gives families stability, maybe the chance to work one job and spend more time with their children. There would hopefully be fewer hungry kids, and less pressure to engage in crime like drug dealing which leads to violence. Everyone is discussing throwing more money at police, schools, the safety net, etc. UBI is at least a new option that empowers people to choose for themselves how they want to live without the overwhelming forces of poverty at play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true.

Not true. I’ve been paying attention this year and absolutely people paid a lot of attention to the 6 year old girl who was recently killed and many others that happened in other neighborhoods. This is like the third daylight shooting in a neighborhood that is a major destination which is why it’s getting attention. These arguments are so stupid.

Yes, I live within half a block of the three shootings that have happened in the last five weeks (drive by shooting into a building on the 1400 block of R where no one was hit, the shooting of the man from TP out for dinner, and Thursday’s shooting). 14th and R/Riggs have been “problematic” for the 20 years I’ve lived here. I’m glad this area is getting some attention but I have zero faith that anything will change. There is open air drug dealing on the 1400 block of R daily. I’ve been told that the police “can’t really do anything because this has been going on for so long” and that maybe we should “just not walk down those blocks” or my favorite “maybe you should move.” If there are no consequences, nothing is going to change. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

The Republicans have to move on the gun debate. But at the end of the day, the most important factor by far in explaining disparities in all manner of life outcomes (poverty, unemployment, crime, education) is whether you were born out-of-wedlock. And we all know the statistics are not pretty. Until the Democrats are willing to have a conversation about this, the gunfire will continue.

Democrats are already pro-choice and in favor of policies that increase education, jobs, and alleviate poverty. So, what's your point? That they should be in favor of forced-marriage and polygamy?

I'm sincerely not following exactly what you think Democrats haven't done on these issues.

They should be in favor of policies that encourage stable families. Instead, Democrats have hitched their wagons to a BLM movement that is very publicly “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Fairly soon 90% of AA babies will be born out of wedlock. This is an existential crisis for our country. Available guns + no fathers = 16th & R. Wake up people.

Maybe if our government hadn't flooded black communities with crack and criminalized black men, their families wouldn't have been disrupted and the ripple effect that we are seeing would not be happening.

Not to mention white violence--what are you proposing to do about that? Are no white fathers absent?

So the 1994 crime bill that you say “criminalized” black men was written by Joe Biden (D), supported by dozens of prominent pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, had the support of black mayors (including Kurt Schmoke (D) of Baltimore) and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D) then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). It was signed by President Clinton (D). And now the same crowd is endorsing disrupting nuclear families.

Yet, somehow this is all the Republicans fault?

Mandatory minimum sentences for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

The Republicans have to move on the gun debate. But at the end of the day, the most important factor by far in explaining disparities in all manner of life outcomes (poverty, unemployment, crime, education) is whether you were born out-of-wedlock. And we all know the statistics are not pretty. Until the Democrats are willing to have a conversation about this, the gunfire will continue.

Democrats are already pro-choice and in favor of policies that increase education, jobs, and alleviate poverty. So, what's your point? That they should be in favor of forced-marriage and polygamy?

I'm sincerely not following exactly what you think Democrats haven't done on these issues.

They should be in favor of policies that encourage stable families. Instead, Democrats have hitched their wagons to a BLM movement that is very publicly “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Fairly soon 90% of AA babies will be born out of wedlock. This is an existential crisis for our country. Available guns + no fathers = 16th & R. Wake up people.

Maybe if our government hadn't flooded black communities with crack and criminalized black men, their families wouldn't have been disrupted and the ripple effect that we are seeing would not be happening.

Not to mention white violence--what are you proposing to do about that? Are no white fathers absent?

So the 1994 crime bill that you say “criminalized” black men was written by Joe Biden (D), supported by dozens of prominent pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, had the support of black mayors (including Kurt Schmoke (D) of Baltimore) and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D) then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). It was signed by President Clinton (D). And now the same crowd is endorsing disrupting nuclear families.

Yet, somehow this is all the Republicans fault?