[Winstonm]

This article states that Freddie Gray was arrested on bogus charges and then killed by the police.

Quote

Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby gave an update on the investigation into the death of Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old who died after suffering a spinal cord injury while in police custody in April, calling his death a homicide.

"We have probable cause to file criminal charges," Mosby said in a press conference Friday.

Charges including second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and assault, among others, will be filed against the officers involved in Gray's arrest, Mosby said.

While I understand that policing is a difficult and dangerous job, it is also dangerous to have a police force that is secretive and self-investigative.

It seems in the Baltimore case, the mayor (now governor) acted as the lead to encourage mass roundups - more, I think, a politically motivated move than a criminal justice tactic. In the end, this type of "round 'em up" mentality coupled with the blue shield Omerta' resulted in the death of an innocent man at the hands of a closed society backed by governmental power - and riots by those who felt powerless and unheard.

We now have a nation where more and more people and groups are feeling powerless, that their votes mean nothing, that there choices are non-existent. We seem to have a police force on the verge of out-of-control.

What is the cause? What is the cure? Or is there one?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2015-May-01, 10:37, said:

This article states that Freddie Gray was arrested on bogus charges and then killed by the police.



While I understand that policing is a difficult and dangerous job, it is also dangerous to have a police force that is secretive and self-investigative.

It seems in the Baltimore case, the mayor (now governor) acted as the lead to encourage mass roundups - more, I think, a politically motivated move than a criminal justice tactic. In the end, this type of "round 'em up" mentality coupled with the blue shield Omerta' resulted in the death of an innocent man at the hands of a closed society backed by governmental power - and riots by those who felt powerless and unheard.

We now have a nation where more and more people and groups are feeling powerless, that their votes mean nothing, that there choices are non-existent. We seem to have a police force on the verge of out-of-control.


What is the cause? What is the cure? Or is there one?

Not that it matters to your central point, but it was the former governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley, who was once the mayor of Baltimore. The current governor, Larry Hogan, has not held any significant political office before, or at least I don't think so. His father was in politics and was a county executive, but not mayor.

Depending on who you talk to, of course, I think O'Malley was regarded as a good mayor. I didn't, and don't, pay all that much attention to Baltimore politics so I don't have a strong opinion on that. O'Malley was the object of some unpleasantness during the riots, I believe. And O'Malley talks, sometimes, as if he might challenge Clinton for the nomination. I don't think anyone takes this very seriously, but maybe he could be Veep. The last former governor of Maryland to become Veep was named Spiro somebody.

Hogan just took office this year.

Incidentally, and of course it always depends on who you talk to, I think O'Malley has gotten generally good reviews on his handling of the issue. He stayed out of it until invited in by the mayor, and then moved rapidly and effectively, setting u an office in Baltimore (Annapolis is the capital).

[PhantomSac]

Here is a different take on O'Malley:

https://www.themarsh...imore-s-anguish

Great interview from someone who I would trust to be knowledgeable about this (the guy wrote THE WIRE).

[kenberg]

PhantomSac, on 2015-May-01, 15:17, said:

Here is a different take on O'Malley:

https://www.themarsh...imore-s-anguish

Great interview from someone who I would trust to be knowledgeable about this (the guy wrote THE WIRE).

This is very worth reading. I don't take anything w/o reservation, I just don't. But I don't think he is making it up. So it is very worth reading.

[mike777]

Unfortunately this will lead to a flight of the black middle class. You will see a sharp drop in black home ownership as we saw in LA and Detroit after 1968. Report in the NYT that nonblack owned businesses were targeted, robbed and burned.

I am concerned that now we will see an increase in violent crime and black deaths in this city. Exactly the opposite of the cry for more justice we hear today.

[jjbrr]

PhantomSac, on 2015-May-01, 15:17, said:

Here is a different take on O'Malley:

https://www.themarsh...imore-s-anguish

Great interview from someone who I would trust to be knowledgeable about this (the guy wrote THE WIRE).

good read, thanks

[kenberg]

In the Post this morning they had pictures of the six charged officers. From appearance: Five men, one women. Three black, three white. Many pictures of people celebrating. All, or nearly all, black. Ok, this is African American on one side cops on the other. I'm this white guy living in the suburbs or maybe exurbs where crime is a very infrequent problem. What do I know, really?

The son of a friend is having significant psychological problems, he is under short term hospitalization taking some array of psychotropic drugs. They have my best wishes for his recovery but I feel, and I am, helpless. Same with the problems in Baltimore.

My own family history probably helps set my views. My father came to this country when he was 10, his mother was already dead, his father died when he was 12, he finished elementary school with the help of his brother and then he went to work. Often such histories are used to say if he can do it so can everyone else, but that's not my point. He managed to have a long and satisfactory life with longtime friends. He provided well for me. Some can, some can't, and so I think there are two basic questions: How do we increase the opportunity for someone to rise above his circumstances, and what do we do about those who can't or don't?

Most emphatically, I don't have answers. But for our own best interest and for others, we should try. Some sixty years ago I read Brave New Woelds. I pulled a quote from here

"..there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon..."

It's one solution, I guess.

I think it should be possible for many people from poor neighborhoods to get to the point where they can be semi-self supporting. They will need government support for medical care and they may permanently need foodstamps (aka SNAP). But they could come to lead normal lives, stay on the right side of the law, work productively. They might even want to try marriage as a structure for raising children. Not everyone will manage this, but we can hope for more success than now happens. But how? Easy to say, hard to do. I get that. And I have no idea what to do for or with those for whom this goal is only an unachievable fantasy. Or who see no reason that they would want to do such a thing. Soma? Yuk. It would be really good to have a better idea.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-May-02, 07:26, said:

In the Post this morning they had pictures of the six charged officers. From appearance: Five men, one women. Three black, three white. Many pictures of people celebrating. All, or nearly all, black. Ok, this is African American on one side cops on the other. I'm this white guy living in the suburbs or maybe exurbs where crime is a very infrequent problem. What do I know, really?

The son of a friend is having significant psychological problems, he is under short term hospitalization taking some array of psychotropic drugs. They have my best wishes for his recovery but I feel, and I am, helpless. Same with the problems in Baltimore.

My own family history probably helps set my views. My father came to this country when he was 10, his mother was already dead, his father died when he was 12, he finished elementary school with the help of his brother and then he went to work. Often such histories are used to say if he can do it so can everyone else, but that's not my point. He managed to have a long and satisfactory life with longtime friends. He provided well for me. Some can, some can't, and so I think there are two basic questions: How do we increase the opportunity for someone to rise above his circumstances, and what do we do about those who can't or don't?

Most emphatically, I don't have answers. But for our own best interest and for others, we should try. Some sixty years ago I read Brave New Woelds. I pulled a quote from here

"..there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon..."

It's one solution, I guess.

I think it should be possible for many people from poor neighborhoods to get to the point where they can be semi-self supporting. They will need government support for medical care and they may permanently need foodstamps (aka SNAP). But they could come to lead normal lives, stay on the right side of the law, work productively. They might even want to try marriage as a structure for raising children. Not everyone will manage this, but we can hope for more success than now happens. But how? Easy to say, hard to do. I get that. And I have no idea what to do for or with those for whom this goal is only an unachievable fantasy. Or who see no reason that they would want to do such a thing. Soma? Yuk. It would be really good to have a better idea.

Quote

Some can, some can't,

This is the part I find missing from the right wing's governing/economic equation - some can't.

Quote

and so I think there are two basic questions: How do we increase the opportunity for someone to rise above his circumstances, and what do we do about those who can't or don't?

... and this, to me, is the more rational and realistic approach - some can't. won't or don't and what do we do to help them?

This, I think, is why I'm considered more liberal than conservative: my thoughts go first to those who can't fend for themselves or who have great difficulty fending for themselves rather than trying to improve the lives of those who can self-provide. I also do not put my trust in slogans; a rising tide lifts all boats may sound cute, but it is untrue as an economic analogy.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2015-May-02, 07:48, said:

This is the part I find missing from the right wing's governing/economic equation - some can't.



... and this, to me, is the more rational and realistic approach - some can't. won't or don't and what do we do to help them?

This, I think, is why I'm considered more liberal than conservative: my thoughts go first to those who can't fend for themselves or who have great difficulty fending for themselves rather than trying to improve the lives of those who can self-provide. I also do not put my trust in slogans; a rising tide lifts all boats may sound cute, but it is untrue as an economic analogy.

A rising tide may also drown people who don't have a boat.

Eugene Robinson writes for the Post and suggests getting rid of abandoned buildings. Probably a good idea. He also comments on the drastic change in population and opportunity over the years.

I got to thinking. I am pretty sure that you do not have to have read Faust to do effective work in tearing down old buildings. You need supervision from someone knowledgeable, but he doesn't have to have read Faust either. We have people that need jobs, and we have work that needs to be done. Maybe someone could have an idea about how these two facts fit together.

I don't mean to be picking on Goethe. The workers don't need to have mastered Calculus either.

No doubt they do need some training, but such training could be useful in the future as well.

Edit: Thinking more about this, it leads to a useful question: Is it beyond the abilities of the young people living in the poor area where Gray came from to do do such work? I read in one of the articles that Clarence Thomas came from somewhere around there, but that was from long ago. How about now?

If the answer is no, they cannot do that and cannot learn to do that, then the situation seems very bad to me. Maybe I should write to Gene Robinson (the columnist mentioned above), or to someone who has a long term involvement with such problems, and ask if this sort of thing is just more than it is reasonable to expect.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2015-May-02, 07:58, said:

I got to thinking. I am pretty sure that you do not have to have read Faust to do effective work in tearing down old buildings. You need supervision from someone knowledgeable, but he doesn't have to have read Faust either. We have people that need jobs, and we have work that needs to be done. Maybe someone could have an idea about how these two facts fit together.

Good idea. These guys have been doing amazing work on this front for over 30 years. I believe they have been mentioned here before.

[awm]

kenberg, on 2015-May-02, 07:58, said:

We have people that need jobs, and we have work that needs to be done. Maybe someone could have an idea about how these two facts fit together.

This has been true for quite some time. The problem is, who is going to pay the people who need jobs to do this work?

Most of the work is not the sort of thing where it will be possible to make a large short-term profit. For example, tearing down abandoned buildings in the inner city does not directly make money for anyone, it just costs money for equipment and labor and hauling away material. In principle you could then build a new building, but most people and businesses do not want to locate in the inner city, and the people who do live there mostly don't have the money to pay significant rents. You can't run a business by paying people to tear down buildings, paying them to build new apartments, and then get enough money back in rent from the same people you just paid to recoup your costs.

Of course, if you look at things in long term, the city might save money on policing and such once the quality of life improves in the area, and some of the people who no longer have to worry as much about their safety might then be able to start a business or find a stable job. But for a private company trying to make money, this type of long-term bet will be hard to even monetize (how does the business identify which individuals were helped on their way to a successful career by the rebuild of the community, and how does the business then extract money from them possibly a decade later?)

Private charities may do some of this work, but they usually have to devote a huge amount of resources to raising more money in contributions and the fraction of revenue actually spent on projects tends to be pretty low. It's not a very scalable solution.

The best solution seems to be for government to make the expenditure (and recoup the money through reduced costs and/or increased tax revenue decades down the road). But the political will to do this simply isn't there at the state or national level, with one party wholly against it and a significant fraction of the other party more worried about things like short-term deficits and the next election. Some of it could be done at the local level, except that the local areas most in need of this type of investment are also the most short of funds (because cities like Detroit that really need a rebuild also have huge deficits because the same poor communities they need to rebuild don't produce much in tax revenue and cost a lot in services).

[kenberg]

Adam I completely agree that if it ("it" being the tearing down of old buildings and, hopefully, making the area attractive) has to be done be government. And, I guess, therein lies the rub. If significant areas our cites are decayed, and if we lack the will to do something about it, we are in deep stuff.

There is a second half to the question, one that I really think is worth understanding, and that is whether if the political will materialized the young people of the area would in fact be able and willing to take the jobs. This is a serious question, not rhetoric. Let me go back again to my childhood. Say 1950 or so. My rather installed weatherstripping, sometimes in old houses, sometimes on construction sites for new houses. He was an independent contractor. At busy times, he would hire help or attempt to. People would accept his job offer and not show up. Or show up late. Or show up so buzzed out from a hangover that they were useless. Referring back, you don't have to have read Faust, but you have to be there and you have to be sober. My father simply had no idea how to explain to a grown man, without sounding silly, that if the job starts at 8 then you should be there at 8, not 10.

In one of the articles about Freddie Gray it mentioned that he was maybe (and maybe not) going to finish a course in masonry. But the guy who was saying that also said that whether he finished it or not there would be no way he would hire him to do work in his back yard. The guy telling this was a lawyer for the family in the lead paint settlement so he perhaps had an agenda, but still.

In order to solve a problem we must have at least a reasonable idea of where the problem is. In Gray's neighborhood, surely the truth is that some would welcome a chance at a good job, they would show up on time and sober, and all would be well. And some would not. I have no idea what the proportions are. For starters, I would guess that many of those who ingested a lot of leaded paint are not going to be in the good worker category.


Fixing up the neighborhoods would be good, employing people would be good, and matching up these two goals would be really good. But problems abound.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2015-May-02, 11:32, said:

In order to solve a problem we must have at least a reasonable idea of where the problem is. In Gray's neighborhood, surely the truth is that some would welcome a chance at a good job, they would show up on time and sober, and all would be well. And some would not. I have no idea what the proportions are. For starters, I would guess that many of those who ingested a lot of leaded paint are not going to be in the good worker category.

Fixing up the neighborhoods would be good, employing people would be good, and matching up these two goals would be really good. But problems abound.

No doubt some folks won't ever be good workers. But I also think that people can lose the motivation to gain the skills, including the social skills, that they need to hold a job simply because they don't see any realistic opportunities for themselves no matter what they do. If jobs were plentiful--and lord knows there's a lot of work required to restore our crumbling infrastructure--more opportunities, and motivation, would exist.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2015-May-02, 12:22, said:

No doubt some folks won't ever be good workers. But I also think that people can lose the motivation to gain the skills, including the social skills, that they need to hold a job simply because they don't see any realistic opportunities for themselves no matter what they do. If jobs were plentiful--and lord knows there's a lot of work required to restore our crumbling infrastructure--more opportunities, and motivation, would exist.

We seem to be in some sort of bad feedback loop. I think of my formative years (I was 6 when WWII ended) as something of a golden era for those from modest backgrounds who wanted to do something. I wish the same for modern youngsters but wishing won't make it so.

[akwoo]

One of the interesting things about what's been said so far here is that, for some reason, it's suddenly become possible for an American to have the opinion that a significant number of people will never be able to make much of a contribution to society, no matter what they or anyone else does about it. One can now think, and be taken seriously in America, that a significant population of non-contributors is not due to a moral failing, either of the non-contributors or of everyone else (depending on your political persuasion), but rather just a result of some scientific fact no one has any power to change.

The Calvinist doctrine of double predestination hasn't been popular in America for the last two centuries. Even many members of historically Calvinist churches are actually Arminist or even Pelagian, believing that, while a few lucky ones may be already marked out for salvation, everyone else can still achieve salvation by working hard to gain faith (in the (semi)-Pelagian viewpoint by doing good works). This has been tied to a political discourse that has reflected to some extent a perceived economic reality where almost everyone can achieve a reasonable degree of success by working hard and playing by the rules.

Suddenly, the idea that many are simply predestined for failure has become, perhaps not the accepted point of view, but no longer an unthinkable defeatist heresy. Ten years ago, any hint of such thought in a forum such as this would have been strongly challenged. Now it is just at least another reasonable opinion.

[PassedOut]

akwoo, on 2015-May-02, 15:38, said:

Suddenly, the idea that many are simply predestined for failure has become, perhaps not the accepted point of view, but no longer an unthinkable defeatist heresy. Ten years ago, any hint of such thought in a forum such as this would have been strongly challenged. Now it is just at least another reasonable opinion.

Interesting perspective. I had always thought that predestined meant predestined.

My view is that, barring some extreme disability, most everyone could become a productive member of society. But some folks encounter such disastrous experiences growing up, and make such unfortunate decisions along the way, that they simply won't achieve their original potential. Given other circumstances, I believe they could.

It would surely help if non-technical jobs were abundant and paid well. But when the number of people who need jobs far exceeds the well-paying jobs available, you are bound to have problems. I, too, remember when well-paying jobs were plentiful for folks without much schooling. That could be the case again, but our political climate now makes that unlikely to happen.

[mike777]

Tearing down buildings attacks the symptoms not the underlying problem.

The destruction of the family unit and the support, discipline and values that come with it.

Senator Moynihan in the 60's talked about this problem at great length.

We know the problem has been there for decades, we throw billions and billions at the problem, but don't seem to have a workable solution yet. If anything the problem is worse, much worse today.

"...They took inspiration from the book Slavery written by Stanley Elkins. Elkins essentially contended that slavery had made black Americans dependent on the dominant society, and that that dependence still existed a century later. This supported the concept that government must go beyond simply ensuring that members of minority groups have the same rights as the majority but must also "act affirmatively" in order to counter the problem.

Moynihan's research of Labor Department data demonstrated that even as fewer people were unemployed, more people were joining the welfare rolls. These recipients were families with children but only one parent (almost invariably the mother). The laws at that time permitted such families to receive welfare payments in certain parts of the United States.

Moynihan issued his research under the title The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, now commonly known as The Moynihan Report. Moynihan's report[4] fueled a debate over the proper course for government to take with regard to the economic underclass, especially blacks. Critics on the left attacked it as "blaming the victim",[5] a slogan coined by psychologist William Ryan.[6] Some suggested that Moynihan was propagating the views of racists[7] because much of the press coverage of the report focused on the discussion of children being born out of wedlock. Despite Moynihan's warnings, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program included rules for payments only if the "Man [was] out of the house."[citation needed] Critics said that the nation was paying poor women to throw their husbands out of the house. Moynihan supported Richard Nixon's idea of a Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI). Daniel Patrick Moynihan had significant discussions concerning a Basic Income Guarantee with Russell B. Long and Louis O. Kelso.

After the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress, Moynihan agreed that correction was needed for a welfare system that possibly encouraged women to raise their children without fathers: ...."
http://en.wikipedia....atrick_Moynihan


I should add that this viewpoint is as controversial in 2015 as it was in the 60's and many strongly disagree with it.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2015-May-02, 17:12, said:

We know the problem has been there for decades, we throw billions and billions at the problem, but don't seem to have a workable solution yet. If anything the problem is worse, much worse today.

So the welfare correction did not solve the problem. Have you any suggestions now to fix it?

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2015-May-02, 18:32, said:

So the welfare correction did not solve the problem. Have you any suggestions now to fix it?

I don't

I have been a vocal advocate for the negative income tax, but clearly that has not improved the issues in the Moynihan report.

I don't have a solution to the Moynihan report 50 years later. Again as I hopefully made clear many strongly disagree this is even the big major issue.

I do suggest an approach taking Taleb in mind, to try many many possible suggested solutions each at low cost. I assume the vast majority will fail but hope some will at the very least improve the problem if not solve it.

The disintegration of the family unit is worse much worse than 50 years ago so whatever we are doing is not working.

[kenberg]

Colbert King also takes a look at the past, in this case 1967. An excerpt:

Quote

Nearly 50 years — and millions of "ghetto enrichment" dollars — later, look at West Baltimore, segments of the District or other U.S. inner cities, and what will you see? A quiet state of crisis: chronic unemployment; children growing up without fathers and living amid poverty and crime and in overcrowded or substandard housing; idle high-school drop-outs; alienation and hostility toward institutions of law and government, including the police — all conditions documented decades ago.

No one wants this to be the case, no one. But it is.

While I agree that abandoned buildings are a symptom, sometimes dealing with a symptom can be of some help. We cannot fix this overnight, perhaps we can't fix it ever. But we can, perhaps, up the chances of someone who is caught up in it to make good choices.

Long ago I suggested, only partly in jest, that every kid should be issued a bicycle and it should be a capitol offense to steal it. Ok, not exactly this. But what we can hope for is that a young person can look around beyond his immediate environment and say "I think I can do better".