"I met the man I call my dad,
When I was five years old.
He took my mom out to a movie,
And for once? I got to go.
A few months later? I remember
Lying there in bed,
I overheard him pop the question --
And I prayed that she'd say yes.
And all of a sudden?
It seemed so strange to me,
How we went from something's missing
To a family ...
Looking back? All I can say about,
All the things he did for me?
Is I hope I'm at least, half the dad ...
That he didn't have to be."
-- "He Didn't Have to Be" by Brad Paisley.
--------------------
If you live in the greater KC area, you no doubt heard the tragic story yesterday afternoon, about how a car, driven by an 80 year old man, at a very high rate of speed, crashed into a power line, plowed into a Cadillac, which then plowed into a daycare center near 27th and Indiana, pinning three kids underneath, and damned near destroying said daycare center.
The outrage at first, focused on the driver. And that's understandable -- he's 80, possibly senile, probably shouldn't have the keys in the first place. After last year's tragic killing of a parishioner in her church's parking lot, because an 87 year old man shifted into D instead of R, it's a natural reaction.
And then comes the news today, that the 80 something year old gentleman yesterday wasn't flying through a residential street at excessive speeds because he was senile ... but because he was completely lucid and coherent.
He was fleeing a rolling shootout between the two cars next to him.
--------------------
Kansas City ranks as the sixth deadliest city in America. Our homicides per capita are worse than Chicago, worse than Detroit, worse than Oakland, worse than New York, Los Angeles, Houston, or Dallas.
We're worse than the District, for Christ's sake.
12.2 homicides per 100,000 residents, as of this date in 2012.
As of today -- Wednesday, July 31, 2013 -- 82 KC residents have been murdered, compared to 56 at this date last year.
Meaning the 12.2 rate?
Is now 17.8.
And that 17.8 rate doesn't account, for those shot, who survive.
--------------------
The sad truth, is that of those 82 homicides, virtually all of them occur within a twenty five mile square radius -- roughly from I-70 to Cleaver II Boulevard, from Troost to Prospect. And even more narrowed down, most homicides in this town occur between 18th and 36th, Troost to Prospect.
In the heart of our war zone? Is the daycare center that elderly gentleman, literally fleeing for his life, plowed into yesterday.
--------------------
So let's address this, by stating a few inconvenient truths up front -- all obvious, but not necessarily "politically correct".
We're in this mess, because of three reasons:
(a) the residents in the urban core feel hopeless, defeated, and abandoned, because
(b) the "white flight" to the suburbs has left the remaining residents of the urban core feeling hopeless, defeated, and abandoned, because
(c) City Hall and the "powers that be", have done nothing to address the problems of the urban core.
We're also in this mess, because of three other reasons, that like it or not, must be mentioned:
(a) the residents in the urban core don't give a sh*t, by and large, about their plight, because
(b) they know they don't have to lift a finger to help themselves, because
(c) the Democrat run leadership of this community, will pay for their existence.
The second set of reasons, is far, far, far more damaging to what used to be a vibrant heart of the city, than the first set of reasons.
If you doubt me? See Detroit.
--------------------
I don't live in the greatest area of town.
I live out by where Bannister Mall used to be. I've been out here for four years; I've been in South KC off of Bannister for six, dating back to what I (not so) affectionately refer to as "The Stubbs Experience"*. Personally? I have never once felt threatened, frightened, or scared for my existence. I don't fear jogging the trail near O'Hara on James A. Reed. I've never been so nervous that I couldn't enter Barnyard Liquors or the (fairly new) Cloud Nine liquor store at 10:30 for a bottle of something to get me through the second half of whatever mid-February NBA game TNT or ESPN had on. I've never been scared (when the damned thing was functional), to park my car in the parking lot, or to fill it up before the sun came up at the QuikTrip on 87th.
I feel so relatively comfortable around here, that I've walked to the B of A ATM at 5am to get some cash for whatever I needed that day ... and never once worried for my safety.
At an ATM. At 5am. In District 6. Across from an abandoned Gordman's, across from a virtually deserted strip mall that only boasts a Little Caesar's, a horrific Subway**, and some nail salon place that you couldn't pay me to enter.
There aren't a whole lot of white people out my way. You can count on about four fingers, the number of white people you'll see in an average trip to the Price Chopper, and the cashier, security guard, and manager are three of the four.
Most businesses fled here over the last decade. What hasn't left? Bannister Mall is a heaping pile of rocks, its parking lot now used as a gated parking lot for the park-and-ride folks who head downtown every day. It's so damned depressing to walk Hillcrest -- the strip mall to the west that used to house Best Buy and other assorted department chains, literally has zero tenants, and the entrance to the lot is barracaded by K-rails. To the east? The Wal-Mart sits abandoned, as of seven years ago. Circuit City is gone. Petsmart is gone. Every bar and restaurant is gone. Jesus -- even the strip club was tore to the ground.
When a strip club can't make it work? That ain't good.
And yet ... in six years out here? I've never once heard a gunshot. I've never once lived through a neighbor or a fellow area resident, being carried out underneath a sheet on the way to the county morgue.
And I've never once been the victim of a crime.
Hell, I'm typing this with my patio door wide open, since it's so decent of a night out ... and that door won't close, until I leave for work tomorrow. (Since we're approaching 90 again. Hallelujah! Maybe my Benadryl bill won't be pushing $40 this month, like July, when these "unseasonably cool conditions" made me congested like I haven't been since college ...)
--------------------
(*: hypocrisy! A certain someone's lifestyle of choice for (at least) six years and counting ...)
(**: every time I go to that place, I get sick. And yet, I keep going back, because I love the Meatball Marinara that much. I'm telling you -- a footlong meatball, on the asiago bread thingy, toasted with provolone, onions, green peppers, salt, pepper, parmesan cheese, and a side of pickles ... mmm ... pickles ...)
--------------------
Since the demise of "the worst purchase of my life", I take the same route in and home from work every day, and you get to know the people you ride with.
Since my place of employment is within sight of the Sprint Campus, there's a solid 5, 6, 7 people I see every day, either to, from, or both, who work at Sprint, and we've struck up many a friendly conversation over the last 18 some odd months. One guy, his name is Tim, looks like a reject from the 1960s. Long, stringy hair; beard that puts the Oak Ridge Boys to shame, but cool as hell, is a freaking genius (yup, IT dude), and the friendliest dude you could ever meet.
The route in, is always on time. The route home, is a crapshoot. For me, I don't care in the evening -- I have a ten minute walk home, or if we're delayed, I'll catch my connector, knock the trip down to 90 seconds, and be lazy. For Tim? He has to catch his connector at 75th and Prospect, to head to the Northland.
If he misses the 5:20 connection, or is sure to miss it due to delays? He gets off in Waldo every day at Wornall, and pays for a cab. Because "there isn't a chance in hell I'll risk a night trip through that part of town."
Meaning, the heart of KC's issues.
--------------------
Another guy on my route, Jason, really nice dude. He also times his trips home.
He lives just north of the Plaza. It's faster for him, to take the Prospect route ... but like Tim, only if it's 5:20 or earlier.
If he has his doubts, he gets off at Ward Parkway, and catches the alternate Wornall route. "I'd rather risk the half mile walk, than risk two minutes on (a post 5:20pm) bus route".
In case you missed it lately, the Prospect route has seen a lady literally chuck gasoline on her fellow passengers and try to light them on fire ... and a gang fight gone ugly, resulting in three wounded riders.
At 11:30 ... in the morning.
At 31st ... and Prospect.
Right in the heart of KC's biggest crime area.
--------------------
What I don't get is this.
We KNOW where the heart of this city's problems lie.
Why aren't we -- and by "we", I mean not just us citizens of this awesome community, but our elected leaders as well, standing up, and demanding the KCPD do what needs to be done, and saturate that twenty five square mile of rotted people and dreams, and bringing some peace, civility, and safety, to the area that needs it the most?
Where is the 3rd District representative Cindy Circo, demanding beefed up patrols, demanding that the police, whose mission last time I knew was to "preserve and protect", where is Ms. Circo demanding that the cops stand up for the 97% of the people in her district that are decent, good folks, just trying to get by, and survive the gang, drug, and crime zone, her district has become?
Or, perhaps a better question, is this ...
--------------------
For any elected leader, especially the elected leader of the free world, of the greatest nation in the history of mankind, of the most prosperous, innovative, forward-thinking country the world has ever known (the last five years notwithstanding) ...
You always search for a legacy, in a second term.
In recent history? Every second termer has secured a legacy, but not all of them good:
* Mr. Bush's legacy, was the war on terror. (I'd argue he failed).
* Mr. Clinton's legacy, should have been the "dot com" boom of the mid to late 1990s, to say nothing of being the first President since Jimmy Carter to submit a budget with a surplus in it. Then Lewinsky happened.
* Mr. Reagan's legacy is the economic boom of the mid to late 1980s ... and what happened barely a year after his forced retirement, because of his agenda and policies -- the collapse of the Evil Empire. Solid.
* Mr. Nixon's legacy, is Watergate. Not something to aspire to.
* Mr. Johnson's legacy, is the Great Society ... (note: this assumes you count his fulfilling JFK's final year, as a first term, and I do) ... and Civil Rights. One was epic. The other has led to the collapse of the urban core we are paying dearly for today.
* Mr. Eisenhower's legacy was the interstate highway system. Rock solid.
* Mr. Truman's legacy, was saving the world from a third world war in forty years, by defending South Korea successfully, and standing the ChiComs and Soviets in the face, and calling their bluff. To say nothing of the bill that rebuilt Europe and Japan, the Marshall Plan. Epic.
* Mr. Roosevelt's legacy was defeating "tyranny in our time", defeating the Axis Powers and saving the world from Fascism, Imperialism, and Nazism.
Mr. Obama? If you want to secure your place in history amongst the giants of this country, the "issue of our time" is staring you right in the face. And no -- it's not equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, although your leadership on this issue (at least since Vice President Biden forced your hand last year) is commendable.
But Mr. Obama? Noone -- I would argue not then, not now, and possibly not ever -- is in a better position, to save this nation from it's greatest crisis.
--------------------
It is not exactly a closely guarded state secret, to anyone who reads this site regularly, or who knows me personally, that I despise the fact, that Barack Obama is my President.
I am from the Clinton wing of the party. (AKA "the wing with a functioning brain".) I voted for Mr. Romney in 2012, voted for Mr. McCain in 2008. If he had nominated anyone other than sleazy ambulance chaser John "The Breck Girl" Edwards in 2004, I'd have voted for Mr. Kerry. (I swallowed hard and chose Mr. Bush ... and I regret it to this day. Mr. Kerry was the better choice, and would have done a better job. This is one of only two votes I've ever cast, that I've regretted, the other being for Mark Funkhouser for KC Mayor in 2007.)
I have never backed a candidate more than I did Mr. Gore in 2000, and my first vote ever cast for President was for Mr. Clinton, despite casting it in Johnson County, Kansas, the year Kansas' favorite son, Bob Dole, was running against Mr. Clinton.
But despite my personal (political) opinions of the President, I respect the man immensely. Mr. Obama restored a sense of dignity, honor, and integrity to the Oval Office that we haven't seen since January 20, 1993. Whatever I may think of his politics, he's a good, decent, honorable man. He's the perfect role model for the African-American community that dominates our urban cores, which are crumbling at a frightening pace.
Sometimes, and man, I hate to say what I'm about to, but it's how I truly feel about Mr. Obama -- sometimes, God acts in mysterious, amazing, "what the f*ck?!?!" ways.
Mr. Obama?
Embrace your legacy.
--------------------
There isn't any person alive more qualified, to reverse the decline of the urban core -- not just here in KC, but across our nation -- than Barack Hussein Obama.
Skip the crude jokes Senator Reid made, Senator Biden made, even the LA Times editorial that labeled him "Barack the Magic Negro" made.
What we have in this President, is an African-American man not embarrassed to be a loyal, dedicated husband. Not afraid, nor ashamed, to stand up for and defend his wife, and his daughters, and his beliefs about what they should have in terms of personal freedoms. (Note to those who don't know me: I am not pro-choice ... but I would not overturn Roe v Wade, as originally written by Justice Brennan. It is the most painful decision a person could ever make, and usually, there isn't a right or wrong decision; there's just a decision you have to live with. I'll leave it at that.)
What we have in this President, is someone that (correctly) the African-American community looks up to, and aspires to be. As well they should! We live in a nation, that when the President was born, his parents could not legally marry -- regardless of the fact his father was already married to another woman. (Inter-racial marriage was illegal fifty years ago.) Mr. Obama rose from a tough upbringing, overcame giving in to his inner demons, so to speak, in his college years, and emerged as a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, an engaged community organizer, a dynamic state and national Senator, and as the candidate who shattered the ultimate "glass ceiling" in American politics. The progress of the last seventy years, begun by Harry Truman integrating the armed forces, carried on by LBJ ramming JFK's Civil Rights legislation through the Senate, to the first President Bush signing the Americans with Disabilities Act into law, through the Supreme Court (correctly, in my opinion) overturning DOMA last month, is remarkable to behold.
And Mr. Obama now has the chance to truly transform this nation, once and for all, for a greater good.
By simply encouraging African-American men ... to be him.
--------------------
I will grant you, I grew up in a relatively affluent household, in the "Golden Ghetto" known as Johnson County, Kansas. When I was born, my folks owned a ranch off 72nd and Antioch. Then we moved across the street from Mid-America off 139th and Cottonwood for a few years, before winding up where my folks still are, in sight of Shawnee Mission Park, at the bottom of the hill on 79th Street. I have not wanted for anything in my existence, that I haven't chosen to want. I won life's lottery, so to speak.
Sadly, so many people left in the urban core, have done anything but. Look it -- we can debate all day whether the Great Society relegated a segment of our society into a permanent "underclass" role (I argue it did), but at least LBJ tried.
What have you done, Mr. President?
--------------------
I believe Barack Obama holds in his hands, the future of this country -- not just as we know it, but what it should be.
Detroit? Tragic. Sad. But gives us, as Americans, a chance to say "no, we won't accept this!" In the words of my preferred candidate five years ago: "No Way. No How. No McCain!"
Mr. Obama can lead on our issues in the urban core. He can stand up, as Bill Cosby has so courageously* done, and say "the biggest problem (African-American men) face, is us". He can stand up, and say that he'd never tolerate his daughters being denied the basics of life, based on the color of their skin.
Or better yet, he can stand up, request a special address to the Congress, as he has done twice before, to address a "grave" issue of our time. Because violence in the urban core -- 99.99% of the time, "black on black" crime?
IS the "biggest problem of our time".
And it's the graves filling up with the victims, that needs to be addressed.
--------------------
(*: you have to admire people willing to stand on the courage of their convictions, regardless. Especially when they're right, and everyone else is 100% wrong, no matter what the Reverend's Sharpton and Jackson of this world, have to say.)
--------------------
82 dead. At a little over the midpoint of the year. In the city I call home.
A 1.7% chance, based on the homicide rate, that I could step outside on any given day, at any given moment, and be killed, simply because of where I live.
Sadly, we all know, if I lived about five miles to the north and east of where I live?
That number would be far closer to ... what, exactly? 15%? 20%? 30%?
--------------------
The third dude I never fail to talk to on the ride in, is Andre. He's in culinary school, is working at the Cheesecake Factory on 119th, while putting himself through said culinary school. I see him damned near every morning, but never on the ride home, save for very rare occasions.
He's the friendliest dude on the ride in. He's one helluva guy. The only Royals game I've made all year? I went with him. (He takes the bus because his mom uses the car to get herself to work each day.) Me and Jason at one point, even convinced our fellow rider and friend Monica to give Andre a chance. (It didn't work out, sadly.)
He rides that Prospect line every morning to 75th Street, then catches the 175 out to where we all work.
Because he wants to get ahead. He wants something better. As does his mom.
As do 99.99% of the people trapped in the urban core.
What are we gonna do about it, Kansas City? Are we going to keep throwing wasted money on Power & Light, on streetcars that move two miles in ten minutes, on expanding the freeway arteries to the suburbs? Are we going to continue to pretend like nobody in that twenty five mile square that harbors 99.99% of the city's problems, doesn't exist to us?
Or, are we going to forget, that the original Gates, is barely north of the war zone at this point (12th and Brooklyn). Or forget that the original Arthur Bryant's, is on the perimeter of the war zone (18th and Brooklyn).
Or forget that when this city hit "major league" status, when MLB and the NFL moved here ... they played in the northwest quadrant of our city's war zone (22nd and Brooklyn)?
I hope Mr. Obama recognizes the opportunity he has, to truly transform this nation into what God intended it to be, through the words of Mr. Jefferson -- that ALL are created equal.
That ALL have certain unalienable rights.
Among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The thugs that incompetent KCMO cops, and an uncaring public, have allowed to take over twenty five square miles of our city?
Have to be dealt with.
@MayorSlyJames? @BarackObama? @VP Joe Biden?
What is your plan, to seize the opportunity history has given you, to not just build this nation from the "middle out", but from the "top down" and "bottom up", as well?
What is your plan, to address the greatest "evil in our time", and finally deal with the collapse of the urban core, and African-American family unit, over the last 50 years?
Mr. President?
Seize your legacy.
Before Hillary does ...
Showing posts with label attack the real urban core issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attack the real urban core issues. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Monday, February 14, 2011
steve reacts to diuguid's latest column
I have a dream, that one day, Lewis Diuguid would write a column I would actually agree with.
Mr. Diuguid is a columnist who I should blindly back. He's an articulate, reasonable person who leans to the left of the political argument. I thoroughly enjoy any appearance he makes on 980's "Shanin and Parks". He isn't a crazy, insane liberal, like so many of those who have a "D" on their voter card.
(I know, I know: I should say "us", like so many of "us", but come on, I voted McCain! I even financially backed Hillary! I saw the disaster the Obama regime has been coming! You can read anything from 2008 on this site to see that ...)
But on one issue, Mr. Diuguid drives me absolutely bat sh*t crazy, and that issue is race.
So imagine my surprise, when I saw the link for his column in the Star this morning, and I gotta admit ... the headline for his article, made me nearly spit out the trademarked Diet Coke and Snickers Ice Cream bar breakfast:
"New Civil Rights Fight Should Focus on Reducing Homicides".
Dear God! Is Mr. Diuguid going to FINALLY focus his anger and rage over race where it belongs: at the tragic, and completely avoidable, plague of black-on-black crime in this nation, particularly in the urban areas of our country?
(And for those reading this who have no idea who the hell I am ... I am a 34 year old, white, male, single, living in south Kansas City, in District 6. I can see the Bannister Mall ruins every day when I take my jog / walk / run ... ok, ok, "very slow pace" around a healthy part of the neighborhood when it's decent enough out to enjoy the scenery. I have not "fled" to Johnson County. Quite the opposite -- I "fled" Johnson County. I believe in the urban core. I live here to prove it).
Well, like I said, I had a dream. Unfortunately, Mr. Diuguid being Mr. Diuguid, that dream didn't last long. About six paragraphs actually. Since I haven't done this in a while, let's break this bad boy down, Steve-style.
(Mr. Diuguid's printed words are noted in italics, my comments will be in normal font. The article without my witty, insightful commentary can be found here).
"Let's dream a little for Black History Month and imagine the civil-rights movement of the 21st century taking on gun violence.
Guns have contributed to an unforgiveable rate of black homicides.
Missouri ranked No. 1 in black homicides in the United States for the second time in four years, according to the Violence Policy Center's annual study of victims.
The Washington, D.C. based center found that the African-American homicide rate in Missouri was 39.9 per 100,000 people in 2008, the most recent year of available data. In Missouri, 287 African-Americans were killed that year.
Pennsylvania, which had led the list the last two years, dropped to second. Kansas ranked 14th with a rate of black homicides that was close to the national average".
sk: a couple things immediately stand out. First, any person reading these opening paragraphs would (I think) rationally conclude that Mr. Diuguid is going to finally address the biggest issue facing our urban core today: black on black crime. You want to know why white flight exists? You want to know why businesses are fleeing where I live (District 6, hardly the inner city, but a minority-dominated core population nonetheless)? It's because they're scared to death of getting shot by someone tweeking out on crack or heroin, looking to score their next fix. And frankly, I can't blame them. I cringe hearing the sirens nightly, even though more often than not, they're to deal with a wreck on the freeway. But still.
Secondly, if Kansas ranks 14th, and is "about the national average", that tells you that the sad crime of African-American homicide is really restricted to just a few states that skew the average. So what might not be a real risk in, say, Idaho or Montana, is a serious threat to Missouri, Kansas, and (I would guess) Illinois, Michigan, New York, the District, and most of the Deep South.
So we're six paragraphs in, and the reader has a reasonable expectation at this point -- that Mr. Diuguid is about to rationally deal with the causes of, and potential solutions to, this scourge on our society, and specifically on our city, since Kansas City's urban core is rocked nightly by violence.
Oh, a kid can dream.
"Gun rights advocates love to point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution backing unrestricted ownership and firearms use for "protection"."
sk: I should have known better. Why blame people for their behavior, when we can blame the "deranged fringe right wing" for daring to take the Second Amendment at face value? Tell me Mr. Diuguid, if I strongly support the Thirteen Amendment, does that make me an "advocate", aka "an impassioned die-hard for the cause" ... or does that make me sane? I'm curious.
I don't own a gun. I never have. I never will. I tend to believe the argument that the more guns you have in a society, the more violence you will have. Seems kind of sensical to me. But having said that ...
There's a reason why the Second Amendment exists. It's to prevent a tyrannical government, like the one we fought against in the Revolution, from ever assuming power in this country. It's also to allow common citizens the right to protect their property and protect their family. Again, seems sensical to me. Why Mr. Diuguid feels the need to use the word "advocates" to describe folks who simply take the Constitution at face value, shows incredible bias, and a blatant disregard for the governing document of this nation.
"But because the government openly sanctions individuals owning firearms, the U.S. and its taxpayers should be held accountable for the damage the weapons do to individuals and property".
sk: This, ladies and gentlemen, might be the single most mentally-challenged sentence I have ever read in my life. And I am fully aware that there are many mentally-challenged sentences I have typed on this site. Rather than blame the perpetrator of the crime, Mr. Diuguid wants instead to punish ... the innocent bystanders. In this case, you and I. Mr. Diuguid, you should be embarrassed at that last sentence. Any credible journalist would read that last sentence, and laugh out loud, as everyone reading your article is likely to do. What kind of a nut blames the innocent bystander, and wants to PUNISH the innocent bystander? I'd say "Cracked!", but it gets better ...
"Gun owners, manufacturers, and bullet makers should be made to pay, too, having a shared liability for hospital costs of victims and funeral expenses".
sk: actually, I can buy this argument. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see it. Like forcing the tobacco companies to pay for killing their clients. Might be a strong-arm cash grab, but at least you can understand why.
"That high cost, especially for innocent victims, would do a lot to curb gun violence, add value to human life, and make living without fear a civil-rights concern".
sk: I take back what I said a little bit ago -- THIS is the most mentally-challenged sentence I have ever read. I mean, Mr. Diuguid, do you actually READ what you write? How in the hell is suing the hell out of legal businesses that make a legal product that has many rules and regulations in place to ensure they are sold only to legal-standing citizens, how does that "curb gun violence"? It doesn't sir -- and you yourself admit it in your previous sentence, when you argue for going after the gun industry to pay for hospital and final expenses costs. Furthermore sir, you want to "add value to human life"? How about we do that by making parents of these people running around killing themselves actually stop continuing the downward cycle of the urban core?
I admire Mr. Duiguid in this regard -- at least he's trying. Unfortunately, he can't tell his head from his ass at this point. If you want people to value life, sir, give them a reason to value it. Don't have a kid at sixteen. Don't settle for a life on the public dime via welfare, WIC, and food stamps. Have some pride. Raise yourself up. The next time you publish a column actually calling on the black community to better themselves, rather than continuing to exploit the "victim mentality" you and so many seem to believe in, let me know, because it'll be the first time you've done so.
"If gun violence became a pocketbook matter for taxpayers, it could reverse the hands-off attitude people historically have held involving guns".
sk: Again, how are guns the problem here? The problem is (unfortunately) young African-American gentlemen trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and violence who simply act on how they're taught to act, be it by their parents, their peers, or society at large. Jesus, Lewis, how hard is this to recognize?
"This long overdue accountability would track with court rulings on segregation. Justices in the 1954 Brown v Topeka Board of Education ruling ended legal segregation. The courts afterwards forced states such as Missouri and school districts such as Kansas City to pay to repair the damage caused by years of government-backed discrimination and segregation".
sk: Lewis! Come on! Not even you buy this bullsh*t at this point! Segregation required a financial remedy because the GOVERNMENT discriminated against it's citizens in direct violation of the Constitution. Tossing money at young people who don't give a crap about life, and take out their lack of incentive and motivation on others, is COMPLETELY different! I mean, you know what? I apologize right here and now for ever questioning conservatism. I sincerely apologize. I now see where unchecked liberal ideology leads. It leads to Lewis Duiguid and his idiotic, completely unworkable "solutions" to a problem whose root cause he refuses to acknowledge.
"Government payment for the gun damage it sanctions would help homicide victim's families and curb the accellerating pace of gun ownership".
sk: Prove it. Show me a single government program, institution, or department that has ever solved anything by tossing money at the problem. Just one. Just one Lewis. Just one.
Furthermore, you insult every reader's intelligence by insinuating that gun ownership is as awful an evil as discrimination. You spit on the governing document of this nation by flat out saying that the government enforcing the law causes murder, causes crime, causes chaos in the urban core. How insane that THIS is what the Kansas City Star employs as it's "opinion voice". How utterly insane.
No wonder the Star and the print media are hemorraging readers. If I wasn't dedicated to seeing this through to the end, I'd pull the plug as well.
Lewis, look around you. You are seeing the results of 50 years of unchecked liberal ideology. Our schools are in ruins. Our urban core is in ruins. People are shooting each other over no reason whatsoever, or because they need to rob someone to get their next fix. Our kids are having kids. Our economy is bankrupt. You REALLY believe the solution is to throw MORE money at the problems? Haven't 50 years of results taught you ANYTHING?
"The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that there are more than 283 million guns in U.S. civilian hands. The center said 33 percent of U.S. households had a gun in 2009.
Guns annually kill more than 30,000 people and injure even more Americans. A disproportionate number are African-Americans.
Of the Americans who die in gun violence, many are suicide victims. Accidental shootings claim more lives and cause more injuries".
sk: I like the slight of hand here, Mr. Duiguid. You lead with the shocking statistic -- 283 million guns in our society! You follow with an awful, what should be jaw-dropping statistic -- 30,000 people dead each year! Many more injured! ... and then admit, well, "many" of those 30,000 are acts of self-violence. And even more are "accidental" shootings.
But I do want to be fair here -- whatever my issues with Mr. Duiguid's position, at the end of the day, we share the same core belief -- black on black crime is DESTROYING America's urban populations. So let's play a little exercise here.
Taking Mr. Duiguid's statistics and words at face value, I am going to make the following three suppositions:
1. 1 in every 10 deaths by gunshot, is via suicide. That would leave 27,000 homicides by gunshot each year.
2. I will say 1 in every 4 gunshot victims due to violent crime, is injured by not killed. That puts that figure at 120,000 (30,000 x 4). However, again, you have to account for accidental shootings, as Mr. Duiguid notes. Again, I will use the 1 in 10 statistic I used for suicides, to reduce the 120,000 by 12,000 to 108,000.
3. That leaves us with 135,000 violent acts committed by guns in the United States every year. A horrific statistic to be sure.
But again, look at the facts, ignore the fancy glowing numbers. 135,000 violent acts ... out of 283,000,000 plus guns owned by the public at large. (Using Mr. Duiguid's own reported figure of gun ownership). 135,000 out of 283,000,000. Meaning .04% of every gun owned by a citizen in America, is involved in a violent crime in any given year.
.04%.
Meaning 99.96% of all guns in this nation are owned by law-abiding citizens, who use them in law-abiding ways. Meaning Mr. Duiguid wants the 99.96% who use their firearms properly, as well as the 67% of the population (approximately 200,000,000) who do not own firearms and have no desire to do so (such as myself), he wants US to pay for the criminal malfeasance of .04% of gun owners.
(And I should probably stress -- that .04% figure is GUNS, not gun owners. Odds are, if you use a gun to commit a violent act once, you're highly likely to do it again. And again. And so the cycle continues, unabaded ...)
"The $100 billion annual cost of gun violence grows if the additional cost in lost work productivity of victims, family members, and friends is included, as well as the expense of grief counseling on jobs and in schools".
sk: I highly doubt most people committing these tragic acts in our urban core are "productive". That's the reason they resort to a life of violent crime in the first place, is the lack of opportunity to better themselves. Again, Mr. Duiguid, for once, would you please address the CORE issue, and not a symptom that isn't really a symptom anyways?
"The Brady Center notes that an estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-fueled suicides would not have occurred under the same circumstances if no guns were around".
sk: wait! I call bullsh*t! "If no guns were around" ... and yet 59% of gun-related homicides, and 6% of gun-fueled suicides would STILL occur? How can that be, Mr. Duiguid? How can you still have gun-related deaths if there are no guns?
(The answer: Mr. Duiguid and the Brady Center are referring to LEGAL weapons. Because clearly, disarming the 99.96% of gunowners who legally operate and own their weapons, so that the .04% who do not can be turned loose, is going to solve the problem).
Do you see what the flaw in your logic is, Mr. Duiguid? You write it yourself for God's sake! Even banning every legal gun known to mankind STILL means (extrapolating on my earlier figures) 15,930 homicides by guns, and 1,800 suicides by guns would STILL occur! Yes, you might reduce the rate of death by half. And that's an admirable goal, truly it is.
But if you really want to reduce the homicide rate by half, why not attack the core problems? Why not offer the population in the urban centers a reason to believe that a better life can be achieved? Why not focus on education, on teaching meaningful parenting, focusing on preventing teenage pregnancy that ruins so many promising young lives?
To be fair, few people do that better than Mr. Duiguid. He is a tireless, dedicated person in the efforts to improve the quality of life in our urban core. As someone that also works to improve life in the urban core, be it through Christmas in October or Junior Achievement, both programs of which I am proud to call myself a long-time member of, I have tremendous respect for Mr. Duiguid on a personal level. The man doesn't simply talk -- he acts.
Unfortunately, he also talks at times, like with this ridiculous piece of opinion journalism today. And that's what enrages me. Of all people, Mr. Duiguid knows best of all what the true issues behind the insanely high homicide rate in our urban core is. It is a mockery to the good works he does daily, to ignore that in favor of a "let's blame the radical right and those crazy gun toters" column that, if anything, sets the work of those of us who do want an improvement to the urban core backwards fifteen steps.
"But the Second Amendment, laws and court rulings liberalizing gun ownership ensures problems with guns will continue".
sk: aw, that pesky Constitution. When will our citizens ever learn that we can do better?
"With Barack Obama as President, people are flocking to gun shows and stores to buy more firearms".
sk: I hate insinuations like this. People are doing this sir, because they are led to believe that their gun rights are about to be taken away. They aren't arming themselves because they fear Mr. Obama, or because they hate Mr. Obama, they're stocking up because they fear they won't have the opportunity to for much longer. Based on your proposals in this column today, I can't say they're wrong.
"Instead of liberalizing gun ownership, society should be held responsible and accountable for the actions of guns. A 2009 study found that gun owners are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault".
sk: And I'm guessing a study would find that drunk drivers are 4.5 times more likely to plow into a light pole than someone who is stone sober. I mean, really? Is anyone even remotely surprised that someone who owns a gun is more likely to be shot than someone who doesn't own one? Kind of goes with the territory, doesn't it?
"Despite the risks, gun ownership will remain. But if taxpayers shoulder more of the high cost of the blood that guns and bullets spill, it would boost the civil-rights value of life without guns.
Perhaps then the country will reassess and do more to limit guns. That shift would help ensure the ultimate civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all in America".
sk: no, what would ensure the "ultimate civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all in America" is to finally take the PC blinders off and accurately deal with the root causes of black on black crime: the lack of opportunity left in the urban core due to white flight to the suburbs. Is that really so hard to acknowledge? Until cities figure out a way to replace the tax base that has fled to the suburbs, and find a way to offer the same opportunities in the urban core that are offered in the suburbs, the cycle will continue, and will only get worse. Maybe in your next column, Mr. Duiguid, you could acknowledge that fact, rather than blame gun owners for what plagues African-American society.
Mr. Diuguid is a columnist who I should blindly back. He's an articulate, reasonable person who leans to the left of the political argument. I thoroughly enjoy any appearance he makes on 980's "Shanin and Parks". He isn't a crazy, insane liberal, like so many of those who have a "D" on their voter card.
(I know, I know: I should say "us", like so many of "us", but come on, I voted McCain! I even financially backed Hillary! I saw the disaster the Obama regime has been coming! You can read anything from 2008 on this site to see that ...)
But on one issue, Mr. Diuguid drives me absolutely bat sh*t crazy, and that issue is race.
So imagine my surprise, when I saw the link for his column in the Star this morning, and I gotta admit ... the headline for his article, made me nearly spit out the trademarked Diet Coke and Snickers Ice Cream bar breakfast:
"New Civil Rights Fight Should Focus on Reducing Homicides".
Dear God! Is Mr. Diuguid going to FINALLY focus his anger and rage over race where it belongs: at the tragic, and completely avoidable, plague of black-on-black crime in this nation, particularly in the urban areas of our country?
(And for those reading this who have no idea who the hell I am ... I am a 34 year old, white, male, single, living in south Kansas City, in District 6. I can see the Bannister Mall ruins every day when I take my jog / walk / run ... ok, ok, "very slow pace" around a healthy part of the neighborhood when it's decent enough out to enjoy the scenery. I have not "fled" to Johnson County. Quite the opposite -- I "fled" Johnson County. I believe in the urban core. I live here to prove it).
Well, like I said, I had a dream. Unfortunately, Mr. Diuguid being Mr. Diuguid, that dream didn't last long. About six paragraphs actually. Since I haven't done this in a while, let's break this bad boy down, Steve-style.
(Mr. Diuguid's printed words are noted in italics, my comments will be in normal font. The article without my witty, insightful commentary can be found here).
"Let's dream a little for Black History Month and imagine the civil-rights movement of the 21st century taking on gun violence.
Guns have contributed to an unforgiveable rate of black homicides.
Missouri ranked No. 1 in black homicides in the United States for the second time in four years, according to the Violence Policy Center's annual study of victims.
The Washington, D.C. based center found that the African-American homicide rate in Missouri was 39.9 per 100,000 people in 2008, the most recent year of available data. In Missouri, 287 African-Americans were killed that year.
Pennsylvania, which had led the list the last two years, dropped to second. Kansas ranked 14th with a rate of black homicides that was close to the national average".
sk: a couple things immediately stand out. First, any person reading these opening paragraphs would (I think) rationally conclude that Mr. Diuguid is going to finally address the biggest issue facing our urban core today: black on black crime. You want to know why white flight exists? You want to know why businesses are fleeing where I live (District 6, hardly the inner city, but a minority-dominated core population nonetheless)? It's because they're scared to death of getting shot by someone tweeking out on crack or heroin, looking to score their next fix. And frankly, I can't blame them. I cringe hearing the sirens nightly, even though more often than not, they're to deal with a wreck on the freeway. But still.
Secondly, if Kansas ranks 14th, and is "about the national average", that tells you that the sad crime of African-American homicide is really restricted to just a few states that skew the average. So what might not be a real risk in, say, Idaho or Montana, is a serious threat to Missouri, Kansas, and (I would guess) Illinois, Michigan, New York, the District, and most of the Deep South.
So we're six paragraphs in, and the reader has a reasonable expectation at this point -- that Mr. Diuguid is about to rationally deal with the causes of, and potential solutions to, this scourge on our society, and specifically on our city, since Kansas City's urban core is rocked nightly by violence.
Oh, a kid can dream.
"Gun rights advocates love to point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution backing unrestricted ownership and firearms use for "protection"."
sk: I should have known better. Why blame people for their behavior, when we can blame the "deranged fringe right wing" for daring to take the Second Amendment at face value? Tell me Mr. Diuguid, if I strongly support the Thirteen Amendment, does that make me an "advocate", aka "an impassioned die-hard for the cause" ... or does that make me sane? I'm curious.
I don't own a gun. I never have. I never will. I tend to believe the argument that the more guns you have in a society, the more violence you will have. Seems kind of sensical to me. But having said that ...
There's a reason why the Second Amendment exists. It's to prevent a tyrannical government, like the one we fought against in the Revolution, from ever assuming power in this country. It's also to allow common citizens the right to protect their property and protect their family. Again, seems sensical to me. Why Mr. Diuguid feels the need to use the word "advocates" to describe folks who simply take the Constitution at face value, shows incredible bias, and a blatant disregard for the governing document of this nation.
"But because the government openly sanctions individuals owning firearms, the U.S. and its taxpayers should be held accountable for the damage the weapons do to individuals and property".
sk: This, ladies and gentlemen, might be the single most mentally-challenged sentence I have ever read in my life. And I am fully aware that there are many mentally-challenged sentences I have typed on this site. Rather than blame the perpetrator of the crime, Mr. Diuguid wants instead to punish ... the innocent bystanders. In this case, you and I. Mr. Diuguid, you should be embarrassed at that last sentence. Any credible journalist would read that last sentence, and laugh out loud, as everyone reading your article is likely to do. What kind of a nut blames the innocent bystander, and wants to PUNISH the innocent bystander? I'd say "Cracked!", but it gets better ...
"Gun owners, manufacturers, and bullet makers should be made to pay, too, having a shared liability for hospital costs of victims and funeral expenses".
sk: actually, I can buy this argument. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see it. Like forcing the tobacco companies to pay for killing their clients. Might be a strong-arm cash grab, but at least you can understand why.
"That high cost, especially for innocent victims, would do a lot to curb gun violence, add value to human life, and make living without fear a civil-rights concern".
sk: I take back what I said a little bit ago -- THIS is the most mentally-challenged sentence I have ever read. I mean, Mr. Diuguid, do you actually READ what you write? How in the hell is suing the hell out of legal businesses that make a legal product that has many rules and regulations in place to ensure they are sold only to legal-standing citizens, how does that "curb gun violence"? It doesn't sir -- and you yourself admit it in your previous sentence, when you argue for going after the gun industry to pay for hospital and final expenses costs. Furthermore sir, you want to "add value to human life"? How about we do that by making parents of these people running around killing themselves actually stop continuing the downward cycle of the urban core?
I admire Mr. Duiguid in this regard -- at least he's trying. Unfortunately, he can't tell his head from his ass at this point. If you want people to value life, sir, give them a reason to value it. Don't have a kid at sixteen. Don't settle for a life on the public dime via welfare, WIC, and food stamps. Have some pride. Raise yourself up. The next time you publish a column actually calling on the black community to better themselves, rather than continuing to exploit the "victim mentality" you and so many seem to believe in, let me know, because it'll be the first time you've done so.
"If gun violence became a pocketbook matter for taxpayers, it could reverse the hands-off attitude people historically have held involving guns".
sk: Again, how are guns the problem here? The problem is (unfortunately) young African-American gentlemen trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and violence who simply act on how they're taught to act, be it by their parents, their peers, or society at large. Jesus, Lewis, how hard is this to recognize?
"This long overdue accountability would track with court rulings on segregation. Justices in the 1954 Brown v Topeka Board of Education ruling ended legal segregation. The courts afterwards forced states such as Missouri and school districts such as Kansas City to pay to repair the damage caused by years of government-backed discrimination and segregation".
sk: Lewis! Come on! Not even you buy this bullsh*t at this point! Segregation required a financial remedy because the GOVERNMENT discriminated against it's citizens in direct violation of the Constitution. Tossing money at young people who don't give a crap about life, and take out their lack of incentive and motivation on others, is COMPLETELY different! I mean, you know what? I apologize right here and now for ever questioning conservatism. I sincerely apologize. I now see where unchecked liberal ideology leads. It leads to Lewis Duiguid and his idiotic, completely unworkable "solutions" to a problem whose root cause he refuses to acknowledge.
"Government payment for the gun damage it sanctions would help homicide victim's families and curb the accellerating pace of gun ownership".
sk: Prove it. Show me a single government program, institution, or department that has ever solved anything by tossing money at the problem. Just one. Just one Lewis. Just one.
Furthermore, you insult every reader's intelligence by insinuating that gun ownership is as awful an evil as discrimination. You spit on the governing document of this nation by flat out saying that the government enforcing the law causes murder, causes crime, causes chaos in the urban core. How insane that THIS is what the Kansas City Star employs as it's "opinion voice". How utterly insane.
No wonder the Star and the print media are hemorraging readers. If I wasn't dedicated to seeing this through to the end, I'd pull the plug as well.
Lewis, look around you. You are seeing the results of 50 years of unchecked liberal ideology. Our schools are in ruins. Our urban core is in ruins. People are shooting each other over no reason whatsoever, or because they need to rob someone to get their next fix. Our kids are having kids. Our economy is bankrupt. You REALLY believe the solution is to throw MORE money at the problems? Haven't 50 years of results taught you ANYTHING?
"The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that there are more than 283 million guns in U.S. civilian hands. The center said 33 percent of U.S. households had a gun in 2009.
Guns annually kill more than 30,000 people and injure even more Americans. A disproportionate number are African-Americans.
Of the Americans who die in gun violence, many are suicide victims. Accidental shootings claim more lives and cause more injuries".
sk: I like the slight of hand here, Mr. Duiguid. You lead with the shocking statistic -- 283 million guns in our society! You follow with an awful, what should be jaw-dropping statistic -- 30,000 people dead each year! Many more injured! ... and then admit, well, "many" of those 30,000 are acts of self-violence. And even more are "accidental" shootings.
But I do want to be fair here -- whatever my issues with Mr. Duiguid's position, at the end of the day, we share the same core belief -- black on black crime is DESTROYING America's urban populations. So let's play a little exercise here.
Taking Mr. Duiguid's statistics and words at face value, I am going to make the following three suppositions:
1. 1 in every 10 deaths by gunshot, is via suicide. That would leave 27,000 homicides by gunshot each year.
2. I will say 1 in every 4 gunshot victims due to violent crime, is injured by not killed. That puts that figure at 120,000 (30,000 x 4). However, again, you have to account for accidental shootings, as Mr. Duiguid notes. Again, I will use the 1 in 10 statistic I used for suicides, to reduce the 120,000 by 12,000 to 108,000.
3. That leaves us with 135,000 violent acts committed by guns in the United States every year. A horrific statistic to be sure.
But again, look at the facts, ignore the fancy glowing numbers. 135,000 violent acts ... out of 283,000,000 plus guns owned by the public at large. (Using Mr. Duiguid's own reported figure of gun ownership). 135,000 out of 283,000,000. Meaning .04% of every gun owned by a citizen in America, is involved in a violent crime in any given year.
.04%.
Meaning 99.96% of all guns in this nation are owned by law-abiding citizens, who use them in law-abiding ways. Meaning Mr. Duiguid wants the 99.96% who use their firearms properly, as well as the 67% of the population (approximately 200,000,000) who do not own firearms and have no desire to do so (such as myself), he wants US to pay for the criminal malfeasance of .04% of gun owners.
(And I should probably stress -- that .04% figure is GUNS, not gun owners. Odds are, if you use a gun to commit a violent act once, you're highly likely to do it again. And again. And so the cycle continues, unabaded ...)
"The $100 billion annual cost of gun violence grows if the additional cost in lost work productivity of victims, family members, and friends is included, as well as the expense of grief counseling on jobs and in schools".
sk: I highly doubt most people committing these tragic acts in our urban core are "productive". That's the reason they resort to a life of violent crime in the first place, is the lack of opportunity to better themselves. Again, Mr. Duiguid, for once, would you please address the CORE issue, and not a symptom that isn't really a symptom anyways?
"The Brady Center notes that an estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-fueled suicides would not have occurred under the same circumstances if no guns were around".
sk: wait! I call bullsh*t! "If no guns were around" ... and yet 59% of gun-related homicides, and 6% of gun-fueled suicides would STILL occur? How can that be, Mr. Duiguid? How can you still have gun-related deaths if there are no guns?
(The answer: Mr. Duiguid and the Brady Center are referring to LEGAL weapons. Because clearly, disarming the 99.96% of gunowners who legally operate and own their weapons, so that the .04% who do not can be turned loose, is going to solve the problem).
Do you see what the flaw in your logic is, Mr. Duiguid? You write it yourself for God's sake! Even banning every legal gun known to mankind STILL means (extrapolating on my earlier figures) 15,930 homicides by guns, and 1,800 suicides by guns would STILL occur! Yes, you might reduce the rate of death by half. And that's an admirable goal, truly it is.
But if you really want to reduce the homicide rate by half, why not attack the core problems? Why not offer the population in the urban centers a reason to believe that a better life can be achieved? Why not focus on education, on teaching meaningful parenting, focusing on preventing teenage pregnancy that ruins so many promising young lives?
To be fair, few people do that better than Mr. Duiguid. He is a tireless, dedicated person in the efforts to improve the quality of life in our urban core. As someone that also works to improve life in the urban core, be it through Christmas in October or Junior Achievement, both programs of which I am proud to call myself a long-time member of, I have tremendous respect for Mr. Duiguid on a personal level. The man doesn't simply talk -- he acts.
Unfortunately, he also talks at times, like with this ridiculous piece of opinion journalism today. And that's what enrages me. Of all people, Mr. Duiguid knows best of all what the true issues behind the insanely high homicide rate in our urban core is. It is a mockery to the good works he does daily, to ignore that in favor of a "let's blame the radical right and those crazy gun toters" column that, if anything, sets the work of those of us who do want an improvement to the urban core backwards fifteen steps.
"But the Second Amendment, laws and court rulings liberalizing gun ownership ensures problems with guns will continue".
sk: aw, that pesky Constitution. When will our citizens ever learn that we can do better?
"With Barack Obama as President, people are flocking to gun shows and stores to buy more firearms".
sk: I hate insinuations like this. People are doing this sir, because they are led to believe that their gun rights are about to be taken away. They aren't arming themselves because they fear Mr. Obama, or because they hate Mr. Obama, they're stocking up because they fear they won't have the opportunity to for much longer. Based on your proposals in this column today, I can't say they're wrong.
"Instead of liberalizing gun ownership, society should be held responsible and accountable for the actions of guns. A 2009 study found that gun owners are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault".
sk: And I'm guessing a study would find that drunk drivers are 4.5 times more likely to plow into a light pole than someone who is stone sober. I mean, really? Is anyone even remotely surprised that someone who owns a gun is more likely to be shot than someone who doesn't own one? Kind of goes with the territory, doesn't it?
"Despite the risks, gun ownership will remain. But if taxpayers shoulder more of the high cost of the blood that guns and bullets spill, it would boost the civil-rights value of life without guns.
Perhaps then the country will reassess and do more to limit guns. That shift would help ensure the ultimate civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all in America".
sk: no, what would ensure the "ultimate civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all in America" is to finally take the PC blinders off and accurately deal with the root causes of black on black crime: the lack of opportunity left in the urban core due to white flight to the suburbs. Is that really so hard to acknowledge? Until cities figure out a way to replace the tax base that has fled to the suburbs, and find a way to offer the same opportunities in the urban core that are offered in the suburbs, the cycle will continue, and will only get worse. Maybe in your next column, Mr. Duiguid, you could acknowledge that fact, rather than blame gun owners for what plagues African-American society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)