Jerry and I are participating in our endless Bad Schools vs Bad Parents & Community argument.
G2A MN Education 2017
I personally think the school systems and bureaucracy are responsible for 35% of the problems in inner city schools, and that unlucky kids with questionably competent parents are responsible for 65%. Where as Jerry is pretty adamant that it is totally the school systems and bureaucracy that are failing the kids, and that things will only get better when vouchers encourage more choice and competition. His logic is pretty simple, we spend the most there, they still have terrible results and therefore it must be the school's fault.
So I want to try this same logic with law enforcement. At some time in the past, North Mpls was a good working class community with good schools, a low crime rate, nice houses, etc. Then people with money started moving further out to get bigger yards, bigger houses, newer communities, etc.
People with less money then bought or rented those small older houses. And this cycle repeated itself for decades. And with each turn the communities got a little poorer and more worn down. And for some reason the violent crime rates started to go up and the schools started to struggle. Then even more people sold their homes and moved out to the burbs. And that brings us to today.
The questions I have... Is there so much crime in North Minneapolis because the Police are failing and incompetent? Or is it because of the demographics and beliefs of the people who live in those communities?
Please remember my old question. Should Parents move their family from a high crime to a low crime neighborhood? Or should they stay and fight for their neighborhood?
And if most of the law abiding people flee from the high crime area, what happens to the community they left? Does the Law Enforcement group become less competent or do the challenges just increase geometrically?
And what will happen if we pay even more law abiding folks to run from their community instead of encouraging them to fight for it?
G2A MN Education 2017
I personally think the school systems and bureaucracy are responsible for 35% of the problems in inner city schools, and that unlucky kids with questionably competent parents are responsible for 65%. Where as Jerry is pretty adamant that it is totally the school systems and bureaucracy that are failing the kids, and that things will only get better when vouchers encourage more choice and competition. His logic is pretty simple, we spend the most there, they still have terrible results and therefore it must be the school's fault.
So I want to try this same logic with law enforcement. At some time in the past, North Mpls was a good working class community with good schools, a low crime rate, nice houses, etc. Then people with money started moving further out to get bigger yards, bigger houses, newer communities, etc.
People with less money then bought or rented those small older houses. And this cycle repeated itself for decades. And with each turn the communities got a little poorer and more worn down. And for some reason the violent crime rates started to go up and the schools started to struggle. Then even more people sold their homes and moved out to the burbs. And that brings us to today.
The questions I have... Is there so much crime in North Minneapolis because the Police are failing and incompetent? Or is it because of the demographics and beliefs of the people who live in those communities?
Please remember my old question. Should Parents move their family from a high crime to a low crime neighborhood? Or should they stay and fight for their neighborhood?
And if most of the law abiding people flee from the high crime area, what happens to the community they left? Does the Law Enforcement group become less competent or do the challenges just increase geometrically?
And what will happen if we pay even more law abiding folks to run from their community instead of encouraging them to fight for it?
8 comments:
We live in a country that elected Donald Trump as president. Our problems run much deeper than poor parenting, teachers' unions, and bureaucracy.
--Hiram
We also live in a country where people who live in high crime neighborhoods question if adding more police will make things better or worse.
Hiram,
I guess I would make the case that "poor parenting, public employee unions, bureaucracy and politicians" may have encouraged the rise of Bernie and Trump.
I agree with Hiram. Teacher unions are not responsible for the rise of Trump. There are several recent books that explore populism, especially right wing populism. I much prefer to read an article about the book rather than tackle the whole book. Here are the ones I know about:
Us v Them: the birth of populism
Review: In ‘Hillbilly Elegy,’ a Tough Love Analysis of the Poor Who Back Trump (I gave this one to my sister who was actually quite excited about it - I think it was my best gift.)
Why working-class people vote conservative
STRANGERS IN THEIR OWN LAND
Anger and Mourning on the American Right
I'll have to finish reading them later... But I found this interesting...
"In both Europe and the US, populist movements have been most successful at times when people see the prevailing political norms – which are preserved and defended by the existing establishment – as being at odds with their own hopes, fears, and concerns."
And of course the Public employee union demands are not aligned with us citizens...
- they want more compensation which raises our taxes
- they want more benefits which raises our taxes
- they strive to block accountability measures, we want them to be accountable, effective and efficient.
- they strive to preserve the jobs of questionable high cost employees, we pay more for lower results and our children suffer
This is aligned to Jerry's question about why the government systems are not fixing their flaws and improving.
Remember the police officer who accidentally shot a Black man in the stairway of the projects... Did he call the ambulance first? No... He called his Union steward... The Public employee unions are BAD news...
Why do we have to label the whole of humanity that elected Trump as "populists" or anything else? When opinion polls say something like 70% of people think the country is "headed in the wrong direction," which encompasses a myriad of ills, and one candidate believably promotes change and the other the status quo, is the rise of Trump so surprising we need to create a whole new movement, complete with a name already tainted by the prejudice on both sides?
Jerry,
Because though 70% may think it is going in the wrong direction does not that they think it should go in your direction.
Remember that a lot of people who disliked ACA would have preferred single payer or universal healthcare... They weren't advocating the repeal of ACA.
If 70% think it is going in the wrong direction, then the other direction is "right" by definition, no matter who supports it.
Post a Comment