Read Me. (or don’t.) (whatever.)
One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not ask a question remains a fool forever.
My five minutes start now….
I spent the weekend doing a lot of manual labor, which gave me time to think. So I was thinking about what the most important questions facing the city are right now. More importantly, how close are we to an answer to these questions? And then, when we have an answer, are we willing to accept the implications of it? So here’s what I’ve come up with (in no particular order). Please add your own in the comments portion. It’s a hell of a lot longer than I intended, but it felt good to vent. I started to not publish this and just delete it. Guess we’ll see if I chose wisely.
Forget the Feds for a second because its too abstract. Is the Governor capable of handling the State’s portion of the recovery?
No, she isn’t. Why? Road Home. The Road Home is the most glaring example of a leader being unqualified for office. We sometimes forget that we should be electing people for the worst possible case scenario. Hell, I could go to cocktail parties and talk shit with a bunch of other idiots, or cut ribbons for the new Walmart, but it doesn’t make me a governor. At best, it makes me Paris Hilton. No, elected officials are supposed to be able to handle the affairs of the state and that’s a tough job. Handling affairs in the aftermath of a disaster makes it nearly impossible. Personally, I don’t think our Governor could manage the affairs of the state with nothing going on - it just wouldn’t be as obvious. The Road Home isn’t working. She knows it isn’t working. She refuses to try something different. To me that’s almost as dumb as choosing a company to run the Road Home that was clearly incapable of doing the job. So she made a mistake, she realizes it was a mistake, and she refuses to make corrections. That is not how you define a leader - and possibly more than anything else we need leadership.
Is the Mayor capable of handling the recovery?
No, he isn’t. Thing is, he might have been at some point, but the storm just fucked the guy up. Can’t fault him for that, but I can fault him for running again. He should have stepped aside and gotten some rest. Thing is, some very difficult decisions had to be made right after the storm and he refused to make them. As much as it pains me to say, there are parts of the city that should not have been recovered immediately and some not at all. If you think of it in the terms of a city’s natural growth process, it isn’t complicated. Obviously, everything needs to be cleaned up for health reasons, but then you start with the city’s core and work your way out. It’s the same way the city originally formed only this time move from less damaged to more damaged, focus resources in each area in turn and get that area to a certain point before moving on. Infrastructure is returned in measures which controls costs and populations can return as the city is naturally ready for them.
I know some people are going to scream “that’s not fair”. But that’s emotion talking, not clear-headed logic. A leader has to be able to make the difficult decisions that make the most sense for the greater good even if it hurts people’s feelings. His misguided drive to “get everyone back” was just poorly thought out and based on emotion, getting re-elected, and possibly to prevent lawsuits from an especially litigious, poverty stricken, African American community distrusting of the government. Additionally, the mayors lack of ability to make a decision has lead to what I think is going to be seen as the biggest misstep of the recovery: The Unified New Orleans Plan. Rather than gather the right people and make a plan, he asked everyone what they wanted and had them write it down. Imagine going out to dinner with a dozen 5 year olds and asking them where they want to go to eat - same thing.
The “everyone back” thing. This is really a touchy subject, but keep in mind that I’m not from here and have more of a nomadic/gypsy sense of living anywhere. It seems to me that just looking at the number of people living in poverty in New Orleans before the storm that the city was unable to provide enough opportunities for everyone to have a reasonable quality of life. That may not be true now, but it must have been true at some point and here’s why I think that. Imagine growing up and your parents didn’t work - ever. not because the didn’t want to, but because there were no jobs that they could get. When you grow up, there may be jobs for you, but you’ve learned that you don’t have to work to get by. Another generation, and another. Now you’ve got a cultural norm of people not working even if there are jobs. (this is all just speculation that seems somewhat reasonable to me) The point is it seems irresponsible socially to bring back all those impoverished people and put them back in place to remain impoverished for the foreseeable future. Other cities, other influences, other perspectives can serve to break that cycle and enable someone to climb out of poverty who otherwise wouldn’t. Throw in a lucky break here or there and lives can improve dramatically.
Is the city capable of handling the crime problem?
I don’t think so, but not for the reasons you might think. Crime has become so acceptable socially in the city its really kinda sad. I hear people say, “Well, every city has crime”. And that’s true in as far as the words in the statement are concerned. Other cities have 20-40% of the crime we have. That’s a big difference. The police keep throwing out excuses and bullshit like pheromones off a frat boy in a strip club.
‘It’s thugs killing thugs’ as if these aren’t real people and I think a lot of people believe that. I’m a little ashamed to say that when I watch the new about murders I’m watching to see if it was a ‘real person’ or someone whom it was bound to happen to sooner or later. I feel bad that I think that way but at least I’m honest enough to admit it, even if just to myself. But it’s wrong to think that way and makes the problem no less important.
‘Per capita crime is down’. Well, that ’s fine if you believe the completely fabricated numbers the mayor comes up with.
And yeah crime is going up as more people come back, and to a degree I understand and accept that. But again, it’s a matter of degrees, and I think what I’m seeing is that the wrong people are coming back.
Another problem is that judges are elected instead of appointed. This makes no sense. At some point the crime rate is so high that enough of the population is a criminal or is closely related to a criminal that the best way to get re-elected as a judge is to be lenient on crime. I think that’s what we’ve been seeing for quite some time. Judges shouldn’t be in a position to have their judgment clouded by popular vote - we shouldn’t turn our judges into politicians because it affects their judgement.
I’ve lived in several cities where I am positive that if someone opened fire on a busy city street in the middle of town at 2 in the afternoon and they weren’t caught by dark, The Chief of Police would be forced to resign by the end of the week. I’m sure of it. If that sort of thing happened with any regularity the mayor would be next. My understanding is that City Council is supposed to be our voice in this sort of thing but they are mostly inaction incarnate. They are sheep and can not accomplish anything as far as I can tell. and if they were to grow a collective set and make a stand, they’d be voted out at the next opportunity. And that is why I don’t think the city is capable of handling the crime problem.
Should Charity Hospital, or something similar reopen?
I’m not really sure about this one. On the one hand, from what I understand, it was a one-of-a-kind hospital and the premier training ground for treating gun shot wounds in the United States. And on the other hand, the reason it was one-of-a-kind is because it’s inefficient. Thing is, I may not have enough detail to make a stand on this. Seems like the city, as a whole was fond of the Hospital. Perhaps as a cultural landmark or a social icon. I never felt such fondness for it, but then, I’ve never been a patient there. And most of the people I hang out with don’t get shot that often.
From what I’ve heard and read, the same services can be offered as an integrated part of the city’s overall Health care infrastructure and it’s less expensive because of economy of scale. If this is true then maybe Charity’s time has passed. I do love the building though and it’d be great if they could do something with it. Maybe turn it into condos or something like is happening with every other building in the city bigger than a double.
Someone out there has to have more information on this….clue me in.
Should the housing projects be reopened?
Absolutely not. Does that mean there should be no housing assistance? Absolutely not. Admittedly, I look at this issue in a somewhat simplistic way and I don’t take the idea of “Home” into account very well. And I know this is an emotionally charged subject but I’m not going to treat it differently because of this.
The social experiment of “warehousing the poor” was clearly a failure. There are now ways to offer housing assistance that’s more socially responsible. Mixed income housing is currently working very well in this very city. It’s exciting and there isn’t that desperate, edgy feel in the air. The down side is obvious though in that it would take time for the new developments to be completed. Complicating things is that some residents will accept nothing short of being placed right back in the same exact unit of the same exact project they were in before the storm. The questions you have to ask are things like, are there other forms of assistance that can allow people nearly the same quality of life while the new units are constructed? - which I believe the answer is yes - in the form of housing vouchers. The vouchers are even better by the fact that the recipient has more choice (but that’s just how I look at it). And the other issue is to ask exactly how accommodating should society be to the poor? That’s a tough one. But to me, assistance is assistance . And there is still the expectation that a certain amount of effort will be expended by the recipient - in this case a little flexibility on the exact location of the place the government is willing to pay for you to live. How many people reading this live exactly where they would if money was no object? My point is, we all make this very concession and it’s mostly why we live where we do. It isn’t unreasonable to ask people receiving housing assistance to make the same kinds of concessions.
The other issue to talk about here is the fact that the housing projects were designed as a temporary cushion for people falling on hard times. It was expected that after a few years, a decade at the most, that people would get back on their feet, and move on to more comfortable accommodations. For quite some time, this was the case, with the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, etc. Nearly every demographic you can think of spent some time as a community in government subsidized housing somewhere in the United States. Around 40 or 50 years ago, the African American community found themselves there and have been there since. That’s not a bad thing, just not what the original idea accounted for. And since there’s a fairly significant group of people trying legally to get back into the projects now, there’s no reason to think they’ll be moving on any time soon. That said, it’s necessary for a number of reasons, to rethink the housing situation and make it more sustainable for the long run. Again, I think mixed income housing addresses this as they aren’t bulk units, but individual units. This also makes it more of a seamless move to ownership if that option is appealing, which I’m sure it would be to some percentage of people.
Is the community capable of eliminating the drug problem?
This is the same exact question as the crime question. It’s just worded differently. The fact is, much of the crime in our city is the result of drugs in some form or another. Now I’ve done my share of drugs when I was younger and I’m not totally against drugs. I mean, the accountant that goes home after work and smokes a bowl…what the hell do I care? But it’s clear, that the guy he bought the weed from or the guy that guy bought the weed from, etc. Somewhere down the line is a guy with an AK-47 firing into a busy intersection at 2pm in the afternoon. The two things are so many steps removed that it’s hard to see the link, but for that accountant to get some weed, to smoke a bowl after work, a dealer somewhere in the line has to protect his market from outside dealers and the traditional way to do that is with a gun.
But it’s because of this gap that we won’t be able to fix it. The stoners all say, no, man, it’s the junkies, and the junkies all say, no, man, it’s the crackheads. Well, as soon as dealers start opening up boutique shops on Magazine selling only this or that drug then I’ll buy that argument. Somehow though, I think the dealers are a little more diversified than that. And everyone that doesn’t do any drugs feel like as long as they aren’t involved with dealers then they’ll be safe so it isn’t an issue. Anyone who really thinks drugs are a serious problem and is intent on avoiding them, moved to the suburbs. And it’s only marginally better, and that margin depends on how you look at it.
Are all these non-profits and fund raisers really making a difference? Where’s all that money going?
Dear God, I hope so. It’s pretty clear that all these volunteer groups coming down for a few days to a few weeks are really getting some shit done. Not on a macro scale, but the effort is huge and the work is difficult. I love me some volunteers coming down and jumping in with both feet. Love it!! They help out, they spend money here. They’re the penicillin for the city’s clap.
Same thing goes for the musician’s village with Habitat for Humanity. Work is coming along and things are getting done. The only thing I don’t like about that is that HFH really got bullied into compromising their philosophy of not building specifically for any group or demographic. They’ve done a good job for years at being socially neutral and this is a blight on that record though it may be understandable given the situation.
But you know, when I think back to that Comic Relief fiasco. I don’t recall seeing the results of one dime from that. Maybe it wasn’t advertised or maybe I just didn’t see it. I dunno, but with all those groups collecting all that money, you’d think it would be more obvious where that money ended up.
Is the city more concerned with it’s image and getting people back than it is in the quality of life of the people already back?
This question has been creeping in on me since the storm. The city seems to constantly play down anything negative. The storm highlighted so much existing wrong in the city that someone, somewhere panicked. Playing around with population numbers, minimizing the crime problem, emphasizing the fact that the tourist areas were relatively unaffected, reassurances that people are coming back, that the city is getting better every day. That constant line of “everything’s alright” bullshit never stops. Anything negative is swept under the carpet. And if it does hit the media, it’s attributed to the storm if at all possible.
And that’s really what’s starting to bother me more and more. The city is all hell bent on getting people back when it is unable to provide a sound quality of life for the people already here. I’d like to propose a deal with the city. If you get crime under control, get the traffic lights to be reliable, and just generally show that you can handle a city with half the population you want, then we can talk about getting people back. But you can’t do the math now, so what makes you think you can do the math with twice as many variables? Shouldn’t you be focusing on the here and now? Shouldn’t you be trying to achieve some sense of livability in the city? Fixing the immediate, real problems like the roads and shit? The city is like irresponsible parents; trying like hell to have another child while the ones they have are starving in tattered clothes. Fix the problems plaguing us now before you drag more people into the fray. Make this city less dysfunctional with half the population and then we can think about growing - then we can grow in a more organic way.
You have no excuse for not controlling the crime and drugs with all the help in town unless it just isn’t a priority for you. It’s being pushed back behind trips to D.C for more money and Trips to Hollywood to make sure more movies are going to be filmed here. Ya know, ironically, the parts of town with the most crime are the parts being controlled by the city’s police. Maybe they should be out in New Orleans East protecting abandoned buildings from looters and let the National Guard come in here and take care of shit. The Mayor can call you from California if we need you.
Well that isn’t all of them, but the one’s I seem more sure about than unsure about. There are still all the abstract questions that are just too difficult to put my finger on. Like cultural things that make success the product of luck or talent rather than the product of hard work. The idea that ‘it’s someone else’s responsibility’ that permeates the city from litter to telling the neighbor’s kid to turn the fucking stereo down. But, those questions are unproductive in the sense that if other elements change then the abstract questions will either go away naturally or become a series of more concrete questions that can be addressed.
I’m sure some of you agree and some of you disagree and that’s a good thing. I love different perspectives. And I think these are mostly all questions that we should know our own answers to. I’m sure I left out many questions that people feel are more important than some of the ones I listed so bring them up in comments.
Thanks for reading and putting up with my gibberish.
Related posts:
Wow, is that a series of logical arguments strung together into a coherent article? I haven’t seen one of those in the city in a while. Almost forgot what it looked like.
Your last Socratic question - about the city’s quality of life and the overwhelming message to “get people back” - is one of the smartest things I’ve read in a long time about the reality of New Orleans.
Jack - you obviously have done enough drugs to come full circle. :-) Although I don’t always agree with your logic or phrasing, you’re arguments are so, well, logical. I’ll read this indepth and give you some feedbaclk when I’m not 4 beers in.
BTW - Charity is the flagship of the nation’s first (and only as I understnad it) treatment first, payment later, if ever, system. The charity system is Huey’s lasting legacy to the state he loved (whether you love him or hate him) - eqaul care regardless of socio-economic status or color. Radical in 1935. And, regreattfully, 2007.
A.
I was a Cancer patient at Charity. I waited as long there as I waited at Ocshner where I ended up after the Flood.
Charity saved my life.
If they keep this Charity closed they should close all the others across the State.
Oh, sure, it’s only black people in ghetto areas that are at the center of marijuana sales networks, who act as middle-persons between growers and brokers. For heaven’s sake.
Sorry Please, you are right, I forgot to mention the roll of Wall Street Investment Bankers as a source of drug related crime in New Orleans. My bad.
Great article though. I dream of a day when the New Orleans drug trade is forced off the streets and into a complex, high tech business model. For now I’m afraid the drug trade consists mainly of illiterate thugs.
Ann and Karen,
Thanks for the info. But I’m a little confused. Are there other Charity-esc hospitals around the State? If so, anyone know how many and where?
And I want to make clear that I’m not questioning the spirit of Charity Hospital (i.e. “equal care regardless of socio-economic status or color”). I’m a huge fan of that. I’m more questioning the methodology. Is it possible to accomplish the goal set out in the spirit of Charity Hospital through existing Health care facilities or do we really need to rebuild and reopen Charity Hospital itself to accomplish the goal?
Jack, there are many Charity Hospital’s threwout the state of Louisiana:
Earl K. Long - Baton Rouge
Moss Regional - Lake Charles
Lallie Kempt - Bogalusa
University - Lafayette
Independance, Pineville, Monroe, Shreveport.
What happened to NO Charity?? The storm. Chairty NO flooded and the hospital was antiquated, put together over the years with ‘gum & rope’. the cost to repair and replace would have been outrageous.
*the building itself is a work of art.
right mindy. and let me add that these hospitals are run very well. (University Medical in Lafayette is as nice as any private hospital in the state)
Also, if you have ever had the opprurnity to spend any time on the 13, 14 & 15th floors at Chairty, years ago those were dorms where the nuns lived. (years later that floor was occupied by medical residents who were on call into the night) everything was just as the nuns left it. old iron beds, wooden wheelchairs, simple furniture - it was very clean. really something to see.
at night those nuns had a breathtaking view of the city as well.
there is also a very cool 2 story gymnasium on the 15 & 16 floor. the marble and iron work threw out the entire building is amazing.
:)
And of course we can take Jack Ware’s comments about marijuana at face value since he’s so intimately involved with the drug trade. Did you know that li’l ol, supposedly backwards, Miss. has largely decriminalized small marijuana offenses to the point where they are on the level with minor traffic offenses? But then again those granola-eating, ACLU-loving-liberal legislators in Miss. would do such a thing, ignoring the fact that they’re contributing to gangland killings in Jackson. What a crock!
Please, if you disagree with my theory that the violence, murder rate, and crime is drug related, maybe you’d like to tell us all what you think the motivation for the crime is. And I’m not being sarcastic, I really want to know what you think the source of the crime in New Orleans can be contributed to if not drugs.
I’ll admit there are other factors, like domestic disputes and shit like that, but I can’t think of anything so pervasive as to get the crime rate so high other than drugs.
I mean really, if you’re going to say I’m full of shit, I’m cool with that and you’re probably right. But at least offer up more specific reasons why I’m wrong and offer an alternative way of looking at it.
And your point about Mississippi is more than a little off topic. I’m not talking about end users and victimless crimes, I’m just saying that end users necessitate dealers, which is where the problem is. I was pretty clear that if someone’s sitting around the house getting stoned after work that I could care less. I think you’ve missed my point on that one…maybe you’re stoned…lol
As always you have the gumption and gonads to say the things that others are too afraid to speak aloud fearing that the PC police will come for them in the night. If I still lived in New Orleans, I would render an opinion but since I am one of the many who have decided that better opportunities are afforded me elsewhere, I will keep my opinion quiet.
Thank you for not allowing yourself to succumb to fear; hence, asking the tough questions.
I think if everyone sat down for a minute and prayed to Jesus, all the crime and terrorism would end.
Jesus died for our sins and made the Easter Bunny for us so we can have Gold Bricks and Cadbury eggs as a reward for being Christians.
I would not argue that drugs are not a major cause of violence in the city (as with any city), but I think what people should be really addressing when looking at the upturn in crime is a different reason. Drugs have been a problem since long before the flood and obviously so has crime, but if it is worse now there is another reason outside of drugs that has caused it. The most obvious, and from what I have seen, not often talked about is the connection between the empty, broken areas of the city and crime. New areas are more dangerous because they are no longer clean, populous, and active. Don’t underestimate the broken window theory to crime and other problems. Without even realizing it consciously people’s attitude will shift just because the street is dirty or something as simple as that. I think we will find that if people were able to get the money they need to come back and rebuild and clean up their street, crime would go down. This might sound too easy, but it has been proven true before. New York stopped almost all major and minor crime on the subway by simply cleaning all the graffiti off the cars and stopping fair jumpers. Crime also went down in the city as more people were ticketed for minor crimes like littering and the city streets were cleaned up. these things really do work, but you need enough people and enough money to make them happen. Sometimes fixing the small problems that might seem to trivial to deal with when there are major problems are just the thing that will fix the big problems.
I’m a huge fan of the Broken Window Theory (BWT). The crux of my thing with crime is that if we employ the BWT and gain ground, I’m not so sure we can get much below pre-storm crime rates which were still too high. Enforcement of minor offenses, like traffic violations, vandalism, etc will net some results and might give a toe hold to deal with the bigger issues. Plus there’s the idea that progress is motivating, and nicer areas elicit pride and people then become actively protective of their little spot in the world.
I would like to believe the crackdown that happened a couple of months ago with the check points and such were the initial steps to implementing the BWT but the steam seems to have run out on that engine. But the great thing about the BWT is that it is small steps and there are things you can do on your own block to get it started like mowing the neighbor’s yard if they aren’t back yet, and picking up trash - a full time job to be sure. I’m not an activist, but it’s a small amount of effort that might help.
Ultimately though, there is a fundamental core factor that needs to be addressed for us to get down to a reasonable crime rate; one that’s below the pre-storm levels. Part of that fundamental core involves a cultural shift in understanding (a paradigm shift, to throw out more catch phrases). In my mind, litter is the elephant in the room that suggests the need for this cultural shift.
Now I’m not suggesting if we get people to understand not littering then murders will go down as a direct correlation. But the BWT does suggest that litter sets a stage where crime would not be out of place so less litter means that crime would seem more out of place, so criminals will be less likely to commit crimes in that area. I know it sounds like New-Age crap but it’s proven to have worked.
And Paul, tell that bastard Easter Bunny I didn’t get my gold brick.
exactly right on the BWT. and in fairness to it working, I would say that it is something that needed to be done pre-K. I am one of the people that thinks the rundown, kind of falling apart aspects to much of the city are a big part of the charm, but that is not the same as litter and abandoned buildings. these things existed pre-K and crime was bad, now they are worse and crime is worse. it may not be a direct connection, but it helps. blocks of abandoned houses are not merely a static background, they actively contribute to the crime.
These are all pretty intelligent posts, especially the main article. I’m very happy to have found this stuff. Now, to all of you sensible people, I pose this question (after a few sentences): In three years I will be in a position to make the choice whether to move my very new family down to New Orleans. Keep in mind that my hometown is just across the Lake, so I’m a native Louisianian. My wife is from some random place in the Midwest. My wife and I are professionals, and are pretty confident we can find good jobs, so hopefully that won’t be a big issue. Emotionally, I want to return “home,” because I feel like there is no place like it, and it can only get better. So here’s the question: within the next three years, what do y’all who live there think I should be looking at as benchmarks as I try to convince my wife that moving there is the right thing to do? Maybe this is a helpful way of thinking about the issues the main article here posed. I want to know what ways the quality of life for the people already there will have to change before it makes sense for someone like me to become another one of the people already there. My tolerance for general “city” bullshit (all cities have it) is pretty high, but my view from the outside these days (not just national media) is that right now New Orleans is uniquely in trouble. When do y’all think it’s time to “buy,” as they say in the stock market? Thanks
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=58044
Jack: It the comments about drugs (marijuana, even–and you specifically mentioned that vs. coke) going to a guy going to another guy and then there being a connection between that and a murder involving an AK-47. So you’re not trying to implicate the casual end user of marijuana? It certainly sounded that way.
You are probably barking up the wrong tree in a number of ways about dope networks, I’m thinking, but I’ll put that aside. The rest was clearly talking about two-links-removed causation, and that clearly points a finger at the casual end-user–which came off to me as something you’d hear in a DARE program or something, which doesn’t work due to hyperbole (the evals of it has been nearly damning). It also reminded me of the “buying drugs helps terrorism” argument. All sorts of things we do play into terrorism, just as all sorts play into the crime problem. Marijuana is the most widely used drug in the country, in rural as well as urban areas with all manner of demographics, but they don’t all have the same problems with crime as New Orleans.
Please, you clearly want to turn this into a “legalize it campaign”. Your response is that of a paranoid reactionary trying desperately to defend his own drug use by referencing it on a macro level. You’ve have overlooked my point because you were too interested in addressing a question you are more comfortable with than the one I asked.
But thanks for making my point for me better than I could. You are expressing that cultural shift I was talking about. As long as enough people think like you do, this city will never solve its drug problem and thus, will never solve it’s crime problem.
Seems to me you’ve said everything worthwhile you have to say so I feel no need to placate you any longer. Thanks for reading. :)
I need to get that book back to you ( re: the broken window theory)
besides… we need to go get a beer, or get your butt to our restaurant and we’ll feed you. Just let us know when so I can remember to out it in my purse
K
Should I:
I’ve given this a lot of thought and was hoping that someone else would chime in. It’s a great question and hides a lot of foils. I wish I’d thought of it.
First I’d suggest skimming through this from my old friend Wikipedia. And be sure to glance at the Economist quality of life index link (Here it is)because it has a list of nine determinants for quality of life. That’s a good overview I think; in case anyone was a little unsure what we’re talking about.
Moving on in my long-winded way. If I was going to make a list specific to New Orleans….
1) Home owner, flood, and car insurance.
2) The housing market and what it does overall.
3) Political stability, actions, and policies (this includes crime)
4) What the school system does (public, private, trade and university levels)
5) Job market and job availability
Those are my top five, not really in any order since they can all be ueckered by any other. Different people would order them differently.
But really, the thing is, I can’t even guess at what the city will be like by Jazz Fest, let alone three years out.
But for your own quality of life, right now, maybe just relax and enjoy the life you have where you are. There’s plenty of time for thoughts of moving back, but for now, I’m not so sure you’re missing anything good by not being here (at least on a daily basis).
Anyone else? A little help…
Are those crickets I hear? Ask the hard questions and nothing but silence prevails.
As long as Americans spend as much money buying drugs, as the US government spends fighting the ‘drug war’ drugs will always be a problem. The BWT (yay to everyone on here who has read The Tipping Point recently)is not just a physical factor, though certainly pre and post-K we have more than our fair share. It also applies to the criminal justice system, the warehousing of the poor, and the failure of our schools.
Drugs/the drug economy are not the sole root of our crime problems, they are a symptom of a larger crisis. We have schools that were designed to train laborers in the 1920s. We have no economic opportunity available to those who have only a high school diploma, a social ’safety net’ that provides neither incentive nor training for independence, a government and a culture that forbid the teaching of anything that smacks of sex ed (including information on contraceptives, pre-natal care, or child rearing that might help to decrease the number of teen pregnancies and the, locally, high number of mentally disabled, a problem that has significant roots in prenatal and early childhood nutrition.)We also have a criminal justice system with all the solidity of Swiss cheese, where to many young men, Black and White, going to jail seems as inevitable as their release 60 days later. All that before we even get to the fact that their are many neighborhoods in this city where its easier to buy a gun or crack than to buy a gallon of milk. The problem is holistic, the solutions must reflect that. I have seen too many people on this and other forums lay blame without taking responsibility. I am tired of the ’send them back to Africa’ cop out that has been so prevalent of late. If you live here, you are part of a system that puts all of us at risk, that denies many of us our potential, and that relies on trigger happy racism rather than intellectual engagement.
Obviously, we need to either legalize and regulate drugs or find a way to strictly enforce anti-drug laws. The latter seems more practical than the former, especially since about 20% in jail at the State level and 55% at the federal level are there on drug charges (in other words we’re already rounding up the pushers and the big dealers, and it’s not helping) These numbers, provided by the DOJ, are probably low, as a significant number of violent crimes are also drug related. Anyone who thinks our current drug laws are the only thing saving us from chaos, needs to revisit the history surrounding prohibition and the development of organized crime. Gun legality and gun access are also areas that need to be reconsidered, I know it’s not a popular stance in the south, but when the second amendment talks about a well regulated militia, I suspect no one had in mind the 15 year old drug dealers in the Irish channel. You can be the most responsible person in the world, but when your house is robbed, your guns are going with the bad guys. If guns are illegal, it becomes possible to prosecute on the basis of possession, rather than waiting for criminal activity.
Those are broad steps, but they certainly don’t address the entire problem. We need to totally revamp our educational system, smaller classes, recruit better trained (and paid) teachers, provide relevant coursework with an emphasis on new technology, and reintroduce high school vocational training, specifically NOLA, in the construction, mechanical and medical fields.
We also, again an unpopular stance, need to make information on sex, contraception, pre-natal nutrition, and child care available in middle school. I have personally taught grown women, from every race and socio-economic class in this city, the basic facts about how their bodies work. They knew less than the peasant women in Egypt with whom I taught similar classes. An educated mother is a mother who raises healthy, intelligent children. An educated girl will delay child birth, even in countries where women lack every imaginable right. thats a start…
Hannah, why don’t you go bore your current city with your comments?
I would “bore my current city” CELCUS but unfortunately the residents in “my current city” are not nearly as reactionary and defensive as you seem to be. Indeed it is far more fun to post here.
I do, however, appreciate your effort in further illustrating my point referenced above. The only contribution you have is an attempt to slam me? My cat coughs up better shit than that.
If you could find it in your heart to express any intelligent commentary regarding the initial post, please do so. I know I personally will be waiting with baited breath as I am confident it will be worth the read. Or, I can always print it out and wipe my ass with it. The latter seems more likely.
Lots of good stuff in there Sue. I don’t agree with all of the specifics but I like that you’re thinking it through. I think you’re onto something with the broad steps. And I think you implied the need for bold steps as well. Bold ideas that address the problems from many angles in a real way.
Nice contribution. Thanks.
Now that’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout, people.
Paranoid reactionary? A reactionary is a right-winger by any definition you’ll find in a dictionary. But your reaction told me all that I needed to know–your original “I don’t really care what others do” was a setup to make a finger-pointing swipe at certain casual users of a marijuana in a passive-aggressive manner, to put them on the level of coke and crack users, whether you say so or not.
I also thought many of your other ideas were not well thought through (e.g., the public housing one–New Orleans still has the crime even without public housing development, and Hope VI’s success is decidedly mixed; see, Chicago’s relatively decent experience vs. Miami’s disastrous and scandal-plagued sham, which leaves me unsure of what the right direction is, leaning in favor of waiting on a new administration in DC and direction at HUD). Why I’m expected to respond to all of your points when I’m helping every day in my own way, or risk being called a person against anything good and just (not that all ill-defined change is ever good or good for its own sake as a controlling, yet ineffable goal), when I’ve voted against corruption, etc., is beyond me. It was your idea to opine on things without researching them in any great detail, and to put yourself out there in the first place, so deal.
But I focused on the baffling drug point due to the absurdity of it. And legalizing some drugs would be a good idea, on any number of levels (including the fact that much, but *certainly* not all, marijuana trade involves street gangs), as you now seem to agree. *It* is less harmful than the cigarettes that are still legal to use in New Orleans clubs and bars. More controlled legalization of more addictive and harmful substances, such as cocaine, would not be inadvisable either.
Well said, Sue!! I’ve been the victim of several crimes in new Orleans, have worked with inner-city kids, was schooled with the daughters of the Rex captains, and rubbed shoulders with almost everyone in-between. I’ve thought long and hard about what to do to save this city, pre-K and certainly post-K. Your rational and well-articulated arguments are what more of us need to start embracing. Thank you!
Please,
Dude, relax, maybe take a couple days off from tokin’ and maybe you’re paranoia levels will drop a bit. Besides, I’m sure you only buy Free-Trade Certified pot and therefore do not share in the blame for the negative aspects of a blackmarket that wouldn’t exist if there were no customers for it to serve. Besides, you are right, it is ridiculous to point to criminal activities as being a contributing factor to high crime rates.
Not only is she boring she is sensitive! Wow!
And I might add, Hannahs suggestions to the contribution of this post were outstanding!
Oh..wait..there were NO suggestions.
So please my boring & sensitive one, feel free to wipe that big classy ass of yours with it.