And that, of course, is precisely what Hanna does. Here's a tidbit.
I visited Shaw (a woman who was moved from the projects to a new place in the suburbs) in February, about a year and a half after she’d moved in. The view outside her first-floor window was still pretty nice—no junk littered the front lawn and few apartments stood vacant. But slowly, she told me, Springdale Creek has started to feel less like a suburban paradise and more like Dixie Homes (the old projects). Neighborhood boys often kick open the gate or break the keypad. Many nights they just randomly press phone numbers until someone lets them in. The gate’s main use seems to be as a sort of low-thrills ride for younger kids whose parents aren’t paying attention...Well, with all those problematical boys, how come no one thought to call their dads and get some discipline and respect for others instilled in them? I mean the dads are around, aren't they?
When Shaw recounts all the bad things that have happened at Springdale Creek, she does it matter-of-factly... Car thefts were common at first—Shaw’s neighbor Laura Evans is one of about 10 victims in the past two years. Thieves have relieved the apartment management company of some of its computers, extra refrigerators, and spare stoves. A few Dixie boys—sons of one of Shaw’s friends—were suspected of breaking the windows in vacant apartments. Last year, somebody hit a pregnant woman in the head with a brick. In the summer, a neighborhood kid chased his girlfriend’s car, shooting at her as she drove toward the gate; the cops, who are called in regularly for one reason or another, collected the spent shells on the grass.
The whole thing has the standard pack of overpaid academics mystified.
If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing.I don't know, how about using words like totally predictable and well, duhhh.
I've got to run and do some more unpacking and organizing in my new house. In the meantime, take a gander at the article. It has some embedded video, shot extraordinarily poorly and with dialog that is meandering and unfocused. I guess the money they pay the academics to do these studies doesn't cover professionally presenting their ideas.
In any case, the thing is just filled with forehead-smacking stories that makes you want to grab Hanna by the collar and shake her until her synapses connect correctly.
Enjoy.
Update: Classical Values thinks the real problem is that drugs like crack, methamphetamines, and heroin aren't legal. Sigh.
Update 2: The total destruction of the libertarian viewpoint is seen in the young boys trying to break into the gated compound. Illegal drugs have nothing to do with it. The boys have no authority figures in their lives because the men in the community are not held to account for their children. That, in turn, derives from the total breakdown of societal moral standards. The boys grow up with no forceful, male guidance until they meet a police officer. The policeman has but one tool - the arrest. Hence, the prisons are full.
For more on the topic, see Rachel Lucas' outstanding piece on the high school girls who made a pact to get pregnant. The libertarian point of view takes a beating there, too.
16 comments:
The article cannot produce a single male Section 8 interview and its... "poor planning", "lack of social services", "need for better policing", etc....
The subject is not even hinted at.
Incredible.
Bingo.
NRA radio had something on a study-- I believe it was in Dallas?-- where this guy was given the locations of the crimes committed, and he graphed them out. He thought he was nuts, because it ended up looking kinda like a bunny--two freeways as the ears.
When he and his wife went looking for ANYTHING someone suggested they look at the "section 9" housing-- and it was a near perfect fit.
This is totally from memory; that said...I know that most of the girls I knew who were single mothers were in gov't subsidized housing....
Linked!
Not to get into a war of semantics but... as these teen-age pregnancies incur a social AND financial burden on the community, an anathema to a libertarian, I am more inclined to call this behavior and tolerance thereof, "libertine".
Dean, there are libertarian components to this, but to claim that the solution is to legalize drugs is just silly. I went through a hooligan phase, too. It had nothing to do with illegal drugs. I was just being a boy.
Oh and thanks for the link, too!
What I don't think you pro-prohibtion people are considering is that the illegality of the drugs is what brings the most visible and closely adjacent personal wealth into these persons lives.
Keeping the drugs illegal puts gangsta bling wearing fools in these lives as role models.
It also puts the violence into the illegal trade--you don't see liquor store owners doing drive-bys for turf.
There's also the issue that as much as prohibition costs, there's no evidence it's made any lasting headway in ending the damage drugs do, just increased the cost in total to society of their existence.
When I look at what we get out of the prohibition policy and what it costs, there is no justification for it.
Alcohol also doesn't turn you into a monster like angel dust, tobacco doesn't make you a giggling moron, and Tylenol doesn't cause the near-instant addiction that heroin does.
The folks who use the term "prohibitionist" tend to gloss over little things like that....
Alcohol also doesn't turn you into a monster like angel dust,
In and of itself alcohol and tobacco kill more people than the illegal drugs combined, and they cost society more--but they are and should be legal.
Just like the currently illegal drugs.
People who object to the term prohibitionist tend to gloss over that.
And cars kill more than alcohol.
Oh, by the way-- you really should pay attention to the percentage, since in a mostly law abiding society, there will be a lower use of illegal substances.
But that wouldn't make your point, so you'll ignore it....
Oh, by the way-- you really should pay attention to the percentage, since in a mostly law abiding society, there will be a lower use of illegal substances.
Y'know. Funny thing about Prohibition.
Overall alcohol consumption did decrease a bit...
...But respect for law and order plummeted, the bootlegger paid for corruption of the police and the courts was rampant, violence associated with the distribution of alcohol was of a new and shocking character, and the consumption of more potent for it's concealability hard liquor sky-rocketed. So did the illnesses associated with intemperate consumption of hard liquor.
As a society, we've already been here before. When alcohol was made legal, we did the right, smart thing. The costs of prohibiting cars because they kill so many (the deaths of whom are frequently linked to legal drugs like alcohol) make doing so an obvious non-starter.
The costs of prohibiting alcohol made that policy non-viable after we were stupid enough to try it.
The costs of prohibiting the other currently illegal drugs outweigh the costs of making them legal.
When we legalize them, we will be doing the right, smart thing.
Oh, because a top-down ban on an existing substance that is used in every culture and most every house is JUST like banning heroin and pot.
Really.
... just got back from the micro-brew fest at the Del Mar Fair so I've got to catch up on all this Prohibition talk...
KT, my mild defense of the term "libertarian" doesn't in any way suggest a support for drug legalization. I wanted to clarify the fact that even a good libertarian realizes there is a financial cost for what is societally "libertine" or "licentious" behavior and, as such, would be personally against this sort of behavior.
I love these libertarian absolutists extending lessons learned from the prohibition of alchohol to the prohibition of crack or PCP.
Biochemistry isn't your strong suit, is it?
Biochemistry isn't your strong suit, is it?
Reality isn't your strong suit, is it?
Who, with prohibition in place, do you think can't get PCP if they want it? Since they still get it, why bother with prohibition.
What about prohibition got smarter when the drug involved changed?
So lowering the cost of something and making it's marketing more common is going to reduce its use? How is that reality?
Having known both alchoholics and drug addicts, I can tell you there is a significant difference, particularly in terms of the extent and probability of recovery. Alchohol and the hard drugs like heroin, PCP, crack and meth are just not the same.
Post a Comment