« Political Media Wars | Main | Ohio Senate Candidate Rips Off Liberal Blogger »
November 08, 2005
Shoot Rioters On Sight
As riots spread throughout France like wildfires left unattended by those afraid to use water, a sane person has to be struck by the impotence of modern Western governments. Whether it’s Moslem enclaves in France, New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, or South Central Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, it seems that the new paradigm involves letting wicked flames burn themselves out, only doused at times by the innocent blood of victims who, in a most shameful abdication of governmental duty, are left to twist in the wind by the Neros who masquerade as statesmen.
As to the unrest in France, I have read headlines stating that the authorities “can’t” stop the violence. “Can’t” is an interesting choice of a word. A better one would be “won’t.” Because, I assure you, I could have stopped the riots on the first day.
The solution: shoot rioters on sight.
Uncompassionate, say you? Okay, let’s talk about compassion.
Some contemptible rioters in France doused a woman, who was in her fifties and on crutches, with some kind of liquid and set her alight. She’s now hospitalized with severe burns.
Sixty-one-year-old Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec died after being beaten into a coma by an attacker.
There have now been scores of casualties amidst the violence, and non-Moslem people cannot enter the areas of unrest (I wonder, will this targeting of non-Moslems be labeled hate-crime?).
More than five-thousand cars and dozens of buildings – including schools and churches – have been burned. By the way, could you imagine the hue and cry if a Christian mob had torched mosques?
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some people were raped and/or murdered, and roving bands of thugs fired on emergency services vehicles and aircraft, hampering rescue efforts and decreasing the chances that those in dire straits would receive life-saving aid. In France, too, there were reports of an attack on a hospital and of an ambulance whose transit was impeded.
During the Rodney King riots, Reginald Denny halted his tractor-trailer truck upon encountering a group of rioters so as to avoid running them over. The thanks he got was to be beaten to within an inch of his life, receiving blows that broke more than ninety bones in his face. Incidentally, the criminal, Rodney King, was awarded 3.8 million dollars of the taxpayers’ money for his lumps and bumps. Denny came away with a broken body.
Do you see a pattern here? What do you think accounts for this ubiquitous governmental failure to act swiftly and proportionately in the face of mayhem? What is to blame for this tolerance of evil? I can encapsulate it in one word: liberalism.
Yes, liberalism. There was a time when riots would have been quelled with a firm hand, nipping the problem in the bud. But that was in bygone days, before decades of liberalism elevated the villainous to victim status and cast true victims as unavoidable collateral damage.
Now there’s an excuse for every riot, often attended by a term adopted to describe the justification. In Los Angeles it was “black rage,” and now in France it’s “disaffected youth.” Yes, people may not be held accountable because they’re victims of their “socialization” or of discrimination or the system or ethnocentrism, or, whatever other rationalization du jour is conjured up by those who live in a liberal fantasy-world built on self-delusion. And never do they ask, perhaps during a rare, lucid moment, the obvious question. If everyone is a victim, who is the victimizer?
It should surprise no one that I segued right from compassion into liberalism, since the latter is the direct cause of our current paralysis by misanalysis. It is why we embrace the bad chess player, never-seeing-more-than-one-move-ahead strategy that precludes us from extinguishing a fire before it grows into a raging inferno. The fact of the matter is that when those bent on doing evil find no opposition, they become emboldened and others of their ilk join the fray. This is why riots that started in suburbs of Paris have now, like a metastasizing cancer, spread to other parts of the country.
Of course, they could have been ended at the get-go with a few well-placed salvos and a credible threat that continued violence would be met with of more of the same. Not that I’m proposing a bloodbath, mind you. Yes, a few miscreants would have been shot, but the rest of the vermin would have gone scurrying back into their holes and lived to complain another day.
Instead, because of gross governmental negligence during all the tragedies I mentioned, those few criminals emerged unscathed and innocent people were hurt and killed. And don’t forget the women violated, the property destroyed, and the intensifying of the atmosphere that tolerates this barbarity, which increases the chances we’ll see more of it. Oh, but I forgot, we have to be compassionate.
Or, to be precise, liberal, counterfeit compassion is what’s expected of us. Liberals observe social breakdown from a distance, safely ensconced in their ivory towers, and would have us believe that they feel sorry for the poor, tormented souls who rage against “oppressors.” But as these pseudo-sophisticates pontificate about the plight of criminals, blind to the fact that their mistakes of comission created the powder keg as much as their mistakes of omission lit the fuse, where is their compassion for the ravagers’ innocent victims? Compassion, my foot. Liberals are simply detached, cold-hearted menaces to society.
Of course, liberals will tell us that we just have to understand the hand that life has dealt to these downtrodden wretches, who, in the case of the Moslems in France, are sometimes coordinating their attacks via cellphone or email. It really gives new meaning to Thoreau’s line, “Give me the poverty that enjoys true wealth.”
Understand them? No, liberals, you have to understand them and they have to understand us. You have to understand that in every society there are people who are bent on doing evil. Such ne’er do wells will seize upon any opportunity to enrich or benefit themselves or wreak havoc, and you can no more mollify them than Chamberlain could appease Hitler. Perhaps you should study Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development or just read Lord of the Flies, and then, maybe, just possibly, a little light bulb will go off in your cranium.
As for the rioting swine, they have to understand that if they dare raise a menacing fist to their fellow man, they’ll promptly be struck by a Draconian hand. That’s the language they understand.
Of course, this is all just part of a systemic problem. It’s just the same as when liberal school administrators tell a bullied child that they can’t bring his tormentors to heel, so he should stay home and be relegated to homebound tutelage. Yes, place the onus on the innocent and let the wicked hold sway.
And so it was during Hurricane Katrina. What was the response of our feckless government to the pillaging miscreants who preyed on the vulnerable? New Orleans seized the guns of law-abiding citizens!
So, let’s get this straight: first the government abdicated its responsibility to protect its people, being too cowed by political-correctness to take necessary action. Then, outrageously, unconscionably, it declawed the good people, leaving them defenseless and at the mercy of predators who roamed about with relative impunity. Ah, the fruits of liberalism: authoritarianism for the good and anarchy for the bad. It’s a deadly combination.
It’s much the same in France, with her NATO (No action – talk only) government. But talk is cheap, as proven by President Jacques Chirac who warned,
“An escalation of disrespectful behavior would lead to a dangerous situation . . . there can be no area existing outside the law [in France].”
Here’s a clue, Chirac, it is dangerous situation, and these areas are existing outside the law at this time. But Chirac is the quintessential, effete, irresponsible liberal leader, as lacking in intestinal fortitude as he is in integrity. His tough talk rings hollow. He’s done little of substance to protect his people thus far and, since he and his fellow statists have largely disarmed the French, they’re easy prey.
Then there is the talk that isn’t merely cheap, but stupid. In the face of violence of insurrection proportions, some are propounding politically-correct theories and engaging in self-flagellation, instead of demanding that the government lock and load. Chirac took the cowardly lead as he obsequiously opined,
“[France] has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected.”
Not to be outdone, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin advocated a 35.5 billion-dollar handout and said,
“We must offer them hope and a future.”
Yeah, the “disaffected youth” need a few more cellphones and computers so they all can become high-tech Jihadists.
Listen, the time for Akhmed to be transformed into a moral being was when he was a wee lad at his mother’s knee. But when he’s grown and gruesome and charging you with an axe, it’s time to shoot. Liberals always prescribe an ounce of prevention when it’s time for a pound of cure. It’s all quite pathetic.
So, I have as message. Pusillanimity, thy name is liberal politician. Liberal politician, you are weak. You are entropy in action. Your ranks are filled with feminized capons and masculinized, clucking hens, leaving you only to ponder which sorry set makes for better men. And if you knew what masculinity was, what femininity was – if you even believed that such qualities were a reflection of the divine and not merely social constructs – you would have a prayer of reclaiming your manhood and resurrecting virtue in yourself at this, the eleventh hour. Alas, though, lost in a sea of confusion and androgyny you’ve become a pathetic creature, possessing neither Christian fortitude nor even pagan ferocity. Yet, you indulge the delusion that you’re fit to perpetuate civilization? You fancy yourself capable to run a nation? The only thing you can run is your mouth.
I also know that when you lose a loved one to the fangs of a viper whose base instincts were loosed upon the world by the permissive environment you cultivated, even this pain won’t inspire you to look inwards. Nay, you will blame some infernal bugaboo. It will be privation caused by trickle-down economics, a paucity of gun-control laws, the destruction of cultural identity, unequal education or disparities in caste and station, the pangs of teenage or black rage, oppressive summer heat or the persecuted Moslem street. All those “truths” that relativists learn in sociology class and embrace as self-evident will crystallize in your mind, causing you to cry out to the heavens for more of the disease and the smiting of those who, unbeknownst to you, hold the cure.
Sadly, the Western world is replete with governments that do a lot of what they shouldn’t and precious little of what they should. Government isn’t supposed to be dispensing condoms and teaching children about sex, offering free tattoo-removal programs, coercively extracting money from citizens for charitable endeavors, building 250 million dollar bridges to nowhere, or mandating that you must hire cross-dressers. A legitimate role of government, though, is to secure domestic tranquility. If the nanny state regimes in existence can’t even do that, they should go the way of the Dodo. And I say goodbye and good riddance.
There was a woman on crutches who, because of liberal compassion, now has another great cross to bear. And the family of Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec will see him no more. Compassion means protecting the good, not tolerating the iniquitous. Liberals, you have been found wanting and are enablers of evil. The blood of innocents is on your hands.
Posted by Selwyn at November 8, 2005 04:19 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Without getting into the political aspect of this (not that is not worth getting into, to the contrary, but apart from it for now) I think you grossly oversimplify the practical application issue of it.
COULD you shoot rioters on site and how certain are you of the subculture and the effect this will have?
The French have indeed in many ways brought this upon themselves, but now that they've got it, looking at what they've gotten, I do not think it is just the French who would have problems dealing with it. I do not see many good solutions to this sort of problem, and a world of potential woes. The real solution is to not end up with this sort of mess in the first place....but there they are and now they need a way out.
How (with whom) would you (or even, Sarkozy) shoot them on site?
Some sources are saying there is significant military equipment and weaponry allready in these suberbs. The 'youths' have access to some outrageous stuff. So if you start a shooting war, you may just find them shooting back with better equipment then you have. Certainly better then the police would likely have.
The police aren't capable of dealing with the rioters as they are, if you started an all out street fight, the police would loose. Many people are ALLREADY calling for the Army....BUT,
PART of the reason (speculatively) why the army hasn't allready been sent in, is some political figgures on capital hill have been saying that the government can't trust the army! It's 15% muslim.
They're in a rather bad situation.
Posted by MJohnson ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at November 8, 2005 04:34 PM
When I say 'on capital hill'....american expression obviously. But the french equivalent of senate staffers are the source of the claims the military poses it's own problems.
Posted by MJohnson at November 8, 2005 04:36 PM
Selwyn - The ultimate ends of of liberalism and conservativism are the same as any political ideology - to bring about the best possible society.
Just because liberals don't rush in with guns does not mean that we lack conviction or balls.
The forces that caused this incident have _nothing_ to do with liberalism. It has to do with social forces in france - their immigrants do not feel represented in positions of power. In contrast, there is no such barrier here in the US and we have much more unity between cultures.
Get back to your guns, trucks, bibles, and lite beer. The rest of us are going through things rather than shooting whatever pisses us off. (let God sort it out later)
Posted by mattk at November 8, 2005 05:22 PM
I disagree completely.
This has plenty to do with socialism and multiculturalism, i.e. liberalism.
Furthermore, these 'youths' I do not think want to be part of the french culture but feel left out, as is being reported. They want the french culture to stop interfering with thier areas where they wish to have thier own independant non-french culture.
Posted by MJohnson at November 8, 2005 05:37 PM
>>I disagree completely. This has plenty to do with socialism and multiculturalism, i.e. liberalism.
how? are you going to support that statement?
Posted by mattk at November 8, 2005 05:45 PM
Am I going to support WHAT statement?
Posted by MJohnson at November 8, 2005 07:21 PM
the one i quoted
if we're going to throw around unjustified statements, i'm blaming it on global warming and paris losing the olympic bid.
Posted by mattk at November 8, 2005 10:12 PM
OK, well let's think about it a little. Clearly these "youths" (violent, murderous criminals) think the government owes them something, i.e. socialism. And clearly they are not willing to assimilate into French society, i.e. multiculturalism.
Posted by Richard Frankel at November 8, 2005 10:22 PM
Dick, do you think it is possible for there to be a social contract without being a commie?
If so your whole entire statement is nonsensical.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 8, 2005 10:54 PM
Um Yeah, considering Richard didn't say a damn thing about communism, I see you're still pushing yourself toward further trembling peaks of inanity every day. You are useless to the mentally retarded trying to live normal, but you are a courageous inspiration to those born normal and striving to retard themselves.
Mattk,
You're right. I cannot back that statement. France is neither socialist nor do can it's immigration policies be described as multiculturalist, so obviously socialism and multiculturalism play absolutely no role in french life, french culture, or any factors that may be contributing to economic and/or political and/or cultural issues in France today like riots.
France, birthplace of Adam Smith, practically invented the free market and does not at all despise it as a filthy Anglo system. France is a libertarian society where the government does not interefer in the lives of self-reliant French people with entitlements and taxes. France does not promote a plurality in culture or the existence of cultural enclaves (or ghettos) within it's borders. France is 100% homogeneous and just slightly isolationist with 0 foreign immigrants...Especially, France has no muslim immigrants....and France has no riots.
These reports about burning cars are obviously false because French are amish and have no cars...France is a liberatarian, free-market capitalist, homogeneous agrarian society. Move along, nothing to see here.
Now before anyone replies to this comment ot trys to check it's accuracy based on the facts...I implore you all to stop for a moment and realise George W. Bush intentionally infected Nelson Mandella with the H.I.V. virus. This is far more important then France. Stop dodging the HIV issue. Talk among yourselves.
Posted by MJohnson at November 8, 2005 11:20 PM
MJohnson -
>>You're right. I cannot back that statement.
Why did you keep talking??
Posted by mattk at November 8, 2005 11:28 PM
MJ, quit your wankery and try again.
I know you have it in you.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 8, 2005 11:45 PM
Let's see...UY's still saying nothing...check.
Matt's still questioning the unquestionable.....check.
Socialism matt. It's what France practices. Western socialism. This gives these "disaffected youths" the notion that the gubmint isn't giving them something that the gubmint should be giving them. Multiculturism, matt. That's what France practices. We have multiculturism to some degree as well, bu tit's not a government mandate. We do it all on our own here. This is what they've been doing for 30 years, matt. Seeking out "North African" immigrants (mainly muslims from Algeria), and shoving them into concentrated centers of muslim culture where the French police do not go. See, matt. That's called multiculturalism. Promoting more than one culture in France. Now, just think of the culture these muslim immigrants came from and brought with them, matt. They come from a violent culture where one riots and commits acts of violence to get what they want. ESPECIALLY if they know damned well that the gubmint isn't gonna do something about it because they don't wanna offend anyone or look bad on CNN....well, by allowing this to go on, France looks bad either way at this point.
Put that clash of cultures together with socialism and you get what you see. Yeah, yeah....you don't believe it....and UY is about to say something asinine and irrelevant.
Posted by Sarge at November 9, 2005 08:33 AM
"Socialism matt. It's what France practices. Western socialism. This gives these "disaffected youths" the notion that the gubmint isn't giving them something that the gubmint should be giving them. Multiculturism, matt. That's what France practices. We have multiculturism to some degree as well, bu tit's not a government mandate."
The United States is much better than assimilating immigrants than any other place in the world. Clarence Page wrote a good op-ed about this where he contends it's because of the the "American Dream." IE... we all came from immigrants, so we're more open to immigrants having opportunity here. In france it is, "once you're in france, you're french." They say everyone one is equal, but in practice, that is not the case.
Page makes the point that the French's practice is what anti-affirmative actionists preach. Government does have to step in sometimes to help correct social ills, and affirmative action is a successfull example of that.
Posted by Tom Shipley at November 9, 2005 09:00 AM
Here is that op-ed, btw.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0511090144nov09,1,3729748.column?coll=chi-news-col
Posted by Tom Shipley at November 9, 2005 09:02 AM
Sarge - What are these rioters asking of the French government?
You're just making things up. "Know what is wrong with France? Socialism! Something has gone wrong in France? Must be because of ... socialism!"
...but I'm glad you didn't bring Senator Kennedy into this.
Posted by mattk at November 9, 2005 10:35 AM
My understanding is that although France is semi-socialist (they DO have a capital market, too, you know), they are not what we would call multicultural. I've heard that something like affirmative action could never gain traction over there, and that they actually look to us as an example of how multiculturalism is a bad thing. Those of you who are saying that they are multicultural, can you give an example of what you mean?
I'm a bit mystified by these French riots. My instinct says that since these are mostly first and second generation immigrants, they've got a lot of gaul (get it?) to be acting as they are. My first reaction is "hey, north africa isn't that far away, you can always go home". They certainly aren't doing any favors for Islam; let's see if France sticks up for them come next American invasion.
I'm also a bit mystified by the reactions of French authorities. It seems stupid to me to be trying to appease rioters mid-riot. Wouldn't that encourage more riots in the future? If nothing else, you want to show that this is not an effective way to get things done.
But there's more to this. First, I don't know much about France. I've heard about their Muslim immigrants, but I don't know much about the situation. I've heard it's actually better than American slums, but I don't really know. The fact that everyone's behavior seems so inexplicable gives me pause. If I don't understand it, maybe there's something else going on. Or maybe they're a bunch of hardcore morons. I don't know yet.
In addition, it's not like there are only two choices. Shooting rioters just seems unwise. If these people are desperate, then that won't make things better, but only create tensions that will simmer over time into something worse. This is one place that I really disagree with conservatives over the last few years; force doesn't always achieve submission.
I think the French should be doing whatever they can to stop the riots and create stability. I can only imagine what would have happened if LAPD had shot looters on sight during the Rodney King riots. Then you'd have the situation where angry black people are expressing their frustration by trashing their own community, and the cops come in to kill them for doing so. Absurdity on all sides. I'm confident that white-black relations would be far worse now if we had done that.
Also, someone forgot to tell Selwyn that the reports of disorder in NO were greatly exaggerated. Wouldn't it have been great if our special forces had stormed in there based on a few overblown rumors, and shot the place up? This trigger-happy mentality is absurd. Likewise, he would see every looter shot because one lady was burned and another guy killed, after a whole week of rioting? Those are called anecdotes, and we shouldn't allow our outrage at isolated incidents to dictate our thinking. That's the kind of mentality that hears about rapes in the Superdome, and sends the 82nd airborne to kick some ass. Why not drop some napalm while you're at it?
My point is, this draconian jazz is rarely the right response. I think the right way to handle these things, in very general terms, is to use the stick and the carrot at the same time. It looks like the French are going mostly-carrot, but Selwyn seems to favor all-stick. Why is it so hard to imagine a middle road? In most cases, it turns out to be the right one.
Posted by Some Fella at November 9, 2005 10:56 AM
Thanks for the info Tom. The column was pretty much right on.
After all, America is a country that takes in millions of newcomers from all sorts of religions and ethnicities from all over the world. Yet, as numerous experts have observed, Arabs and Muslims, quite notably, have integrated and assimilated much more comfortably and successfully into mainstream American life than their European-based counterparts.This is because, unlike France, the U.S. did not go off recruiting muslims from 3rd world countries with 3rd world mentalities and shove them all into 3rd world communities in our country. Sure, there are areas with higher muslim populations like down in Virginia and out in Michigan.....but we did not make those communities. They did that on their own.
Gee matt, one of the things these rioters are asking for is independent government for themselves. They want to be made an enclave governed by themselves with their own islamic law within the country of France and they think France should just go along with their separatist ways.
Sorry, Teddy the killer has nothing to do with France. However, if you wanna bring the AWOL Senator and part-time Frenchy Monsieur Kerry into it....maybe there's something there.
Posted by Sarge at November 9, 2005 11:02 AM
"I'm also a bit mystified by the reactions of French authorities. It seems stupid to me to be trying to appease rioters mid-riot. Wouldn't that encourage more riots in the future? If nothing else, you want to show that this is not an effective way to get things done."
I think curfews should have been instated much earlier and I don't think there was any good leadership guiding the country and city during the riots (hopefully, to quote Cheney, they are in their last throes), but aside from sending police out to quell acts of violence, i don't see too much you can do to quell the riots.
I don't think sending in the military would help the situation. You already have a segment of the population rioting because they are disenfranchised, sending in the military to keep them down would just intensify this feeling, i believe.
I think leadership should have directly appealed to the parents and more responsible members of the arab communities to help quell the riots.
Shooting any rioter would make a bad situation 10 times worse.
But, back to what got me to make this post:
"It seems stupid to me to be trying to appease rioters mid-riot. Wouldn't that encourage more riots in the future?"
I don't really think riots are something that are encouraged, or are conscious decisions by its members. They just kind of happen. Long-simmering senses of inequality or injustice are what cause riots. I don't think allowing one to burn itself out encourages other riots in the future.
Posted by Tom Shipley at November 9, 2005 11:12 AM
>>Gee matt, one of the things these rioters are asking for is independent government for themselves.
Which is neither socialism or multiculturalism. In fact, its the opposite of multiculturalism. Socialism is neither here nor there - this is an issue of representation in government.
Posted by mattk at November 9, 2005 11:21 AM
Multicultural, as in they took people from one culture and segregated them into centralized locations of ONLY that culture instead of assimilating them into the French culture. Thus, they have 2 distinct cultures.
MAn...did I ever screw up that last post.
This is because, unlike France, the U.S. did not go off recruiting muslims from 3rd world countries with 3rd world mentalities and shove them all into 3rd world communities in our country. Sure, there are areas with higher muslim populations like down in Virginia and out in Michigan.....but we did not make those communities. They did that on their own.
Gee matt, one of the things these rioters are asking for is independent government for themselves. They want to be made an enclave governed by themselves with their own islamic law within the country of France and they think France should just go along with their separatist ways.
Sorry, Teddy the killer has nothing to do with France. However, if you wanna bring the AWOL Senator and part-time Frenchy Monsieur Kerry into it....maybe there's something there.
Can we all understand how the LA riots got stopped and how France needs to do the same thing to stop THEIR riots? LA was stopped because the PRESIDENT deployed the 9th infantry division and a brigade of the 25th infantry divison (MY brigade) and those highly professional and higly trained riot-control personnel stopped the riots without resorting to killing anyone. Police forces are trained to deal with people on a personal level and are generally bad at handling riots, even when they have thousands of cops in riot gear...they just suck at it. Generally, their idea is to fire tear-gas and pepperspray and shot-gun bean-bags until the rioters decide to go away on their own.
When you see 20,000 men in uniform acting as one well-trained body with riot batons or M-16s with a bayonet pointed at your throat...all marching as one in the "on-guard" position...coming at you one step at a time with a "MOVE!!!" with every deliberately stomped left step.
You are gonna move. No questions about it. Anyone that doesn't move gets sucked behind the ranks to the waiting arresting teams. Anyone that brings out a weapon gets shot by snipers. Anyone that is instigating the riot gets targetted and incapacitated.
THIS is what France needs to do. Send in the trained military and TAKE control of the situaion. They're not gonna just GIVE control, it needs to be taken by force.
THEN France can try to deal with what is demanded of them. Take control and THEN hash out the problems instead of simply caving into the demands of the lawless like France is about to do.
Posted by Sarge at November 9, 2005 11:22 AM
Which is neither socialism or multiculturalism. In fact, its the opposite of multiculturalism. Socialism is neither here nor there - this is an issue of representation in government.
Matt, you need to let the coffe do its magic and engage the brain because you're trying to deal with 2 different things like they're the same.
The "socialism and multiculturalism" comment is made to understand the situation in France. The "they demand an independent government and authority" is a completely different issue...it's one of the demands I've seen coming out from the spokesmen over there that you asked for. So don't go whipping on strawmen this early.
PLUS, they're not asking for "representation in the French government" they're demanding their own damn rule of their own little suburban territories with their own Islamic cultural laws. They're asking for an independent enclave.
Tom, instating curfews is fine, but it does nothing if they're not enforced. Telling thousands of rioting poeople that they are in violation of a curfew isn't ognna stop anything. Only an overwhealming show of force is gonna stop a riot that obviously isn't gonna burn itself out on its own, not with the cries of "JIHAD!!!" coming from the crowd.
Send in the military, if they even bother to train their military to deal with riots in other ways than indiscriminantly shooting them like they did down in the Ivory Coast.
Posted by Sarge at November 9, 2005 11:35 AM
Actually, sarge does make a good point too. Perhaps the best way to quell a riot is to bring in an extrodanary amount of force.
But, i do think that the idea of this being the beginning of "jihad" in france and europe scared the fuck out of french authorities. You bring in government troops to quell these arab youths, most of them going back to their tenement homes once it's done, you have a ton of potential al-qauda cell waiting to happen (and you still may have that).
I don't know, it's a tough situation all around. I think in some ways, riots can be good, sort of a mass primal scream therapy. You get all that anger out and once it dies down, you're able to deal with the problem more rationally.
Posted by Tom Shipley at November 9, 2005 11:40 AM
Sarge,
I think you're right. That is the right way to stop a riot. A show of force is useful...full-on curbside executions, not so much.
I still don't agree that France is multicultural. Please tell me about this policy of segregating the Muslims in the suburbs. First of all, I call that segregation, which is quite opposed to multiculturalism. Second of all, I don't think this segregation was any more deliberate than what goes on here.
Multiculturalism is the idea that you tolerate and encourage the expression of many cultures and subcultures within mainstream society. My understanding is that France is NOT like this, that they have an explicit cultural policy of assimilation (which has failed in this case). They do not celebrate Islam, and in fact banned headscarves from schools. Is this what you'd call multiculturalism? There is a tendency among conservatives to wrap all the evils of liberalism into one one tight little ball.
I don't really think riots are something that are encouraged, or are conscious decisions by its members. They just kind of happen. Long-simmering senses of inequality or injustice are what cause riots.
I agree that a sense of injustice/inequality can cause riots, but I think it can take more than that. I think you can definitely create an atmosphere where a would-be rioter will think "maybe I'll stay home today". If a bunch of first/second generation immigrants in the US rioted, they know they would get their asses kicked hard, and rightfully so.
This is not to say that I think these rioters have nothing to be upset about. They probably do. People don't riot just for fun...um, except after athletic competitions. Hmm. Seriously though, I'm sure there are some wrongs that need to be redressed. But now is not the time for that. I would try to put the message out there along the lines of "We can talk, but put down the molotov cocktail first or I'll stomp your ass."
Posted by Some Fella at November 9, 2005 11:46 AM
for the record, I agree that a show of force is needed. in fact, i really don't see why there would be any debate over putting down riots. however, a minimal amount of force should be used, not "shoot all rioters" as Selwyn seems to suggest.
Posted by mattk at November 9, 2005 12:35 PM
"We are enforcing a curfew. We will be patrolling the streets after the curfew has been put in place. nyone out after curfew is rioting and will be arrested. If there is ANY resistance, you will be shot. Period"
That's all you gotta say. If they don't listen, they get taken out. You DO NOT allow this sort of thing to go on for one day let alone almost 2 weeks.
If this happened in America (at least, out in Jesus land where people actually own guns) and the govn't didn't stop it. You're damned skippy there will be a "well organized militia" out there taking care of it.
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 9, 2005 01:44 PM
>>You're damned skippy there will be a "well organized militia" out there taking care of it.
Ah yes...the citizens of New Orleans were protected by the "well organized militia".
Posted by mattk at November 9, 2005 01:54 PM
Sorry, matt, but you once again fall into the Liberal stereotype... The one that doesn't understand the difference between gun toting looters and innocent, law-abiding, second ammendment-exercising Americans trying to protect themselves from the criminals (who probably stole the guns).
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 9, 2005 02:24 PM
I still don't agree that France is multicultural. Please tell me about this policy of segregating the Muslims in the suburbs. First of all, I call that segregation, which is quite opposed to multiculturalism. Second of all, I don't think this segregation was any more deliberate than what goes on here.
Yes, it was governmental segregation. BUT this segregation allowed a different culture to remain in a concentrated area. They have rather secular Paris with an entirely different culture as soon as you step across the border of one of the muslim enclaves. The French govenment did this over the last 30 years, taking citizens of their French African colonies...most of which are muslims...and segregating them into those parts of town that're burning right now. Now they're reaping the fruits of not assimilating their immigrants.
Multiculturalism: In comparison to the above two approaches, multiculturalism is a view, or policy, that immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation. Today, this is the official policy of Canada and Australia. Multiculturalism has been described as preserving a "cultural mosaic" of separate ethnic groups, and is contrasted to a "melting pot" that mixes them. This has also been described as the "salad bowl" model.
No, France doesn't fit ALL of the ideas of multiculturalism...no country fits ALL the ideas. Yes, France TRIED to assimilate muslims in certain characteristics like language and such, but they failed because they started by segregating them into dense centers, then gave up on the "everyone must learn French" and then did stupid things like banning relgion-related head scarves. Not a wise choice.
"We can talk, but put down the molotov cocktail first or I'll stomp your ass."
I just don't think this is how their culture operates. They make demands and riot until the demands are met. I'm with you....squash the shit out of them until they choose to be civil and THEN we'll talk.
Posted by Sarge at November 9, 2005 03:04 PM
Ah yes...the citizens of New Orleans were protected by the "well organized militia".
Stupid comment of theday (minus anything UY says).
How about you make the distinction between RIOTING and LOOTING? Good job comparing apples and pilot whales.
Posted by Sarge at November 9, 2005 03:07 PM
>>The one that doesn't understand the difference between gun toting looters and innocent, law-abiding, second ammendment-exercising Americans trying to protect themselves from the criminals (who probably stole the guns).
What are you getting at?
Guns were systematically siezed in New Orleans after the looting was largely finished. Further, it seems that your "well armed militia" wasn't on the scene.
Posted by mattk at November 9, 2005 03:07 PM
Right, because the only people who didn't get out were the looters. We're talking about a natural disaster (where smart people get the hell out of there) and a social disaster (where the was no warning for evacuation).
A better comparison is the militia trying to stop the hurricane, not the looters. So yeah, Sarge is right on...
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 9, 2005 03:19 PM
Was the looting after the storm a "natural disaster"?
Posted by mattk at November 9, 2005 03:42 PM
Ok, it's official, you're a jackass ;-)
"Good job comparing apples and pilot whales."
Right on, Sarge.
The looting is irrelevant, your whole comparison is irrelevant. The looting was caused by the storm, had it not been for the storm, the looting would have never taken place. The Militia was not there, precisely because they were not *physically* there.
But you can bet, that if someone came to my neighborhood and started rioting and killing innocent people, my neightbors and I would not shut ourselves in our homes and cower (and this is assuming this was being allowed by the government and law enforcement to actually go on). We would be out in the streets with our 12 guages and hand guns shooting the shit out of anyone who destroyed our property.
Why are the French shut in their homes? I do not know. Is it because they are not allowed to own guns or because they are too afraid to use them? Again, dunno, I don't know French law, nor do I care to. I'd like to think that Americans, at least where I come from, would take action against this crap if their government didn't.
It goes back to what SF said, basically. It's not happening here because they KNOW we wouldn't tolerate it.
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 9, 2005 03:51 PM
so if it rains really really hard before social unrest, don't expect the guns to help.
What kind of notice does the well armed militia need? Three days? Five days?
Posted by mattk at November 9, 2005 03:58 PM
Notice meaning "the smart people left", ie. EVACUATED. According to you libs, the only people left behind were the poor, which, I guess is their justification for looting. No one else cared because they were ALL GONE.
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 9, 2005 04:22 PM
>>Let's see...UY's still saying nothing...check.
It still open to an answer, since Dick decided to ignore it.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 9, 2005 05:35 PM
Mutt's a perfect example of the result of the partial birth abortions he's such a fan of. We certainly know they got all the brains sucked out - but they did an abysmal job destroying the virulent biological waste.
A horrendous failure! Now he will retard the entire species. That is until he joins his Al Qeada heroes and detonates himself.
Posted by Radical Redneck at November 9, 2005 09:39 PM
What kind of notice does the well armed militia need? Three days? Five days?
No matt. Once again, make the distinction between looting an evacuated city and rioting in a non-ecvacuated city. If I evacuate my home for natural causes and someone lotts my homw, I will not be there to defend my home. If I do not evacuate my home and a band of thugs comes rioting by and think they're gonna throw a cocktail through MY window, they're gonna be rolling around on the ground with a few .45 holes in 'em and the cocktail is gonna break at their feet. End of rioting in front of my house. I don't need any "notice" to protect myself.
Posted by Sarge at November 10, 2005 10:08 AM
Sarge - I wasn't discussing the protection of property, I was discussing the protection of people. You know, the people who were left behind.
While your little story about your .45 is very heartwarming, as a whole, guns did nothing to maintain sanity in NO.
Finally, people who stayed behind and protected themselves with guns simply had them removed from their possession days later.
Posted by mattk at November 10, 2005 10:34 AM
Mutt's a perfect example of the result of the partial birth abortions he's such a fan of. We certainly know they got all the brains sucked out - but they did an abysmal job destroying the virulent biological waste.
A horrendous failure! Now he will retard the entire species. That is until he joins his Al Qeada heroes and detonates himself.
I think I've found the right-wing Um Yeah.
UY is funnier.
Posted by Some Fella at November 10, 2005 10:39 AM
No matt of course you're talking about people in your false analogy. DT was talking about something like Paris-riots happening in the U.S. and you went running off on a natural disaster that had no Paris-like rioting. The Paris-rioting has thus far been a property thing. It is a comparison that cannot be made logically matt. Yet, you don't get that. PLUS, there has to be sanity in NO in order to maintain sanity in NO...and I've been there a few times. That was, is and always be an insane city.
I think I've found the right-wing Um Yeah.
YEs, you have. But there's nothing funny about the UY-troll.
Posted by Sarge at November 10, 2005 12:14 PM
Sarge - Twist my comparison however you please, but lawlessness is lawlessness.
Posted by mattk at November 10, 2005 12:21 PM
Sarge, thank you. I tried to post basically the same sentiment yesterday, but it apparently didn't show up.
Matt, go back and look at what you're arguing before you argue it.
I said Americans would not tolerate this sort of thing. The looting in NO is completely, 100% and irrefutably different than what's happening in France and elsewhere.
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 10, 2005 12:29 PM
No matt, I have twisted nothing. Your false analogy was twisted enough all on its own. Suprised you didn't bring in "stealing a candy bar" to make a non-point.
Posted by Sarge at November 10, 2005 02:31 PM
I'm surprised you didn't bring in Stalin or Ted Kennedy.
Posted by mattk at November 10, 2005 02:59 PM
DT was talking about something like Paris-riots happening in the U.S. and you went running off on a natural disaster that had no Paris-like rioting. The Paris-rioting has thus far been a property thing. It is a comparison that cannot be made logically matt.
Partisan-check: What you said is true, but can and should be applied to the original post by Selwyn as well. He mentioned it as a place we should have been executing looters...I'm sorry, rioters. Unbeknownst to him, by doing so he was giving the perfect reason to not react with knee-jerk aggression, since those rumors were way overblown.
Posted by Some Fella at November 10, 2005 03:15 PM
I'm surprised you didn't bring in Stalin or Ted Kennedy.
I'm not. Teddy-the-Killer and Stalin the mass murderer have nothing to do with muslims rioting in Paris. Just like stealing a candy bar has nothing to do with capital offenses.
SF, It was the truth in a conversation between me and matt and because I didn't address Selwyn's comments with a discussion between matt and myself means nothing. You gonna do a partisan check every time I call UY on his bullshit while ignoring RR for his bullshit that is the same type bullshit? Probably. Difference is, RR doesn't lie about me, so I choose to ignore his comments. UY does lie about me daily, so I choose to show everyone here that he's a lying sack of shit.
Posted by Sarge at November 10, 2005 03:38 PM
Does anyone else have moments of private embarrassment over taking part in conversations on this site?
Posted by mattk at November 10, 2005 03:48 PM
Does anyone else have moments of private embarrassment over taking part in conversations on this site?
Haha!
Yes, and I bet I'd be even more embarrassed if my manager found out.
Posted by Some Fella at November 10, 2005 03:54 PM
Im embarrassed that Sarge is technically human.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 10, 2005 04:59 PM
Oh Sarge,
You gonna do a partisan check every time I call UY on his bullshit while ignoring RR for his bullshit that is the same type bullshit?
This sentence is a little hard to understand. I'm going to take a stab at it thought...
I don't address the points that either of those guys make because they're just trolls. When you respond to them in a meaningful manner, they win. Besides, your point was against mattk, right?
I call people on stuff all the time on both sides of the isle...there's just no question about that. I'm not even saying you were wrong about anything. I'm just pointing out that almost everyone let Selwyn slide on that point. It's not a refutation of anything you said.
Posted by Some Fella at November 10, 2005 05:19 PM
>>When you respond to them in a meaningful manner, they win.
Fella you actually think Sarge has ever responded in a meaningful manner?
No matter what I say, whether im trolling or not he breaks out some random bullshit.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 10, 2005 05:39 PM
To those thinking the ridiculous:
1) Rioting is not neccessarily synonomous with looting. While I'm sure people are stealing TV's in Clice Sous Bois or whatever, we did not see thousands of cars and dozens of nurseries, schools and police stations being torched in New Orleans, nor did we see such acts of violence and shooting at the police. There were a few incidents of shooting, the total over the course of the catastrophe numbering less then probably a single night south of Paris.
2) This wasn't just allowed to happen by NO police as it was by French police. There was a hurricane. That's where the lawlessness came from, a massive catastrophe that made it impossible for anyone to exert authority. In France's case, there is just simply a lack of authority. There aren't any 150mph winds, blown over buildings, thousands of homeless and wounded..there isn't 10ft of water on the roads. It's hard to police a neighborhood in your police car when it's under 10ft of water and you haven't been issued your police boat and SCUBA-riot gear yet. It is most categorically a different situation.
3) Furthermore, to some extent N.O. police did indeed alow the looting because the looting was deemed neccessary for survival. TV's, no, but looters did need to loot food and water, so authorities throwing tear gas because the people still needed to SURVIVE. And the police that were around were ever so slightly busy trying to save peoples lives who were stranded in homes, wounded, drowning,....looting thankfully not being the preferred priority.
Furthermore, while the situation in New Orleans was proven to have been VASTLY OVERBLOWN and hyped, the situation in France is more likely to be precisely the opposite. When they tell you how many cars got torched, they are NOT counting cars that were set on fire but not destroyed..they are NOT counting cars that were not SET on fire but only CAUGHT on fire from other, nearby burning cars.
Burning cars in these areas are NORMAL, even before the riots the statistics of what people manage to not pay attention to are rather astounding.
And much of the French media comes flat out and says they think the riots are getting 'too much coverage allready'. Hmm.
Meanwhile, in Denmark there is almost a complete media blackout of the riots there....Now, possibly for good reason. They don't want to encourage the rioters with the attention they probably desire. But still, mum is the word.
When you're watching Fox or CNN, most of what you see in France I would wager, comes second hand from French press. They aren't out investigating in Paris, contradicting French government and press.
The French government and Press have, for the last 20 years, become VERY VERY good at ignoring large portions of this problem, which while news, is scarcely new.
Posted by MJohnson at November 10, 2005 07:40 PM
"perfect reason to not react with knee-jerk aggression, since those rumors were way overblown."
THOSE rumors where overblown. Now no offense to anyone, but that is what I call 'liberal logic'.
Is that or isn't that relevant and how? Yesterday I looked at my watch and 5 minutes later it started to rain.
I just looked at my watch.
I think we can safely conclude it will begin to rain in another 4 minutes and 48 seconds.
There is definetly 1 similarity here, it's not in the authority, it's in the people. The people there (looting/rioting) but moreso 'The People' as in the whole of the country.
Ask yourself why, if all these reports ended up false, were people so ready to beleive N.O. residents were doing all these horrible things? Why did everyone buy it, without question? Why wasn't anyone shocked, mortified, doubtful?
The meaningful comparison here is that the US, just like France, has an amazing ability to ignore outrageous things. No one is shocked to see this sort of rioting because we all know what those neighborhoods are like, it's just that no one ever talks about it. Perhaps what we can learn here is we cannot continue to ignore the complete colapse of civility and society in our 'cultural enclaves', and cannot continue to view as simply quaint 'cultures' which define themselves with anarchy, deliquancy, dereliction, and a complete despite for the law. Because we can only do that for so long after the last periodic explosion of violence before the next comes along.
Posted by MJohnson at November 10, 2005 07:52 PM
The correct way to handle these things is treat it as a police matter, until the cops say we can't do it or the pols.
The next thing you do is isolate the areas and bring in the Troops,
Then you make a display of force, declare the area an emergency zone, curfew it.
Then you make another show of force, arrest and deport, or beat bloody those that resist.
Then, if they don't disperce, declair the area in rebellion, issue a shoot to kill order and take the place down.
This is now day 4.
Bill
Posted by Little Bill at November 11, 2005 09:26 AM
THOSE rumors where overblown. Now no offense to anyone, but that is what I call 'liberal logic'.
None taken. But I don't think you're getting my point, and that's probably because I kept it shorter than normal. I'm addressing the argument of the main post, which dealt not merely with Paris, but also gave examples of the Rodney King riots and the NO looting. I believe that in all these situations, shooting on sight would be a bad idea. And one reason is because knee-jerk aggression may turn out to be an overreaction to rumors.
I don't know or even really suspect that this is applicable to Paris. But like I said, I was addressing Selwyn's post, and since he gave NO as an example, I felt it worth refuting. Does that make more sense?
Feel free to say I'm being illogical. But is the "liberal" label really necessary? I'd like to know what made that illogic liberal. I can definitely attest to seeing both "liberal" and "conservative" logic go wildly astray on this very site, and I don't see much difference between the nature of the errors.
Posted by Some Fella at November 11, 2005 09:39 AM
MJ, one more thing:
The meaningful comparison here is that the US, just like France, has an amazing ability to ignore outrageous things. No one is shocked to see this sort of rioting because we all know what those neighborhoods are like, it's just that no one ever talks about it. Perhaps what we can learn here is we cannot continue to ignore the complete colapse of civility and society in our 'cultural enclaves', and cannot continue to view as simply quaint 'cultures' which define themselves with anarchy, deliquancy, dereliction, and a complete despite for the law. Because we can only do that for so long after the last periodic explosion of violence before the next comes along.
This is intriguing, but I don't know what could be done. You're basically talking about poverty, slums, and the disorder one finds within them. Isn't this something that has always afflicted cities? What you're talking about sounds like a fundamental change in that nature of urban life. I can't really imagine any kind of solution to these things. Can you propose something, because it's like you're talking about something that would be very revolutionary. It's like saying you're going to do away with murder, or something like that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you are being a little vague.
Posted by Some Fella at November 11, 2005 09:46 AM
...sorry for the not closing my bold text last mail...
Posted by Some Fella at November 11, 2005 09:47 AM
hmm I think something is wrong with this site, I can't close it no matter what html I add
Posted by Some Fella at November 11, 2005 09:48 AM
Bold kinda sorta does that, I've seen it happen alot when it's used on this site...the tags don't close...anyway..
No, I'm talking about 'doing away with murder' or any such ridiculous impractical impossible utopian pipe dream. I don't think violent riots are simply a reality of city life....Maybe I am an idealist for thinking we can run a city without having a million of it's residents try to firebomb it to the ground. We cannot make things perfect, but I think we can do alot better.
I will not go into, at this time, a long boring thesis about the how's and why's of society, but I will tell you the solution: Disperse them. Divide them. Dilute them. Assimilate them.
Now, you say :
"You're basically talking about poverty, slums, and the disorder one finds within them. Isn't this something that has always afflicted cities?"
Yes and no.....'ghettos' yes, 'projects' no. I think there is a SUBTLE difference. 'projects' are worse then most 'ghettos' ever were. Ghetto's are by no means suberbia, but do not let the perfect (or perhaps in this case the 'pretty good') be the enemy of the good (or the 'better then we have now').
People who work, earn money, buy homes, they will live wherever they like. Often amidst the lower class and even in some places the upper class, they will choose to live in ghettos. Or 'cultural enclaves'. But this isn't really nearly as bad. These people are mobile (at least in our capitalist society they are), they are working, they are producing, they are progressing. They have control over thier lives, and furthermore they're busy and not idle. And they have things to take pride in, things that are THIERS.
Ghettos are nowhere NEAR as likely to have this sort of lawlessness. Look at the old ghettos, every city had them, it IS natural to city life. But the old Polish, Czech, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Black, ect. ghettos did not have nearly the entropic and counter productive society we have in those same areas today....areas which, consequently, the old poles and czechs and irish and chinese are long gone from: they've moved out of the ghettos, made thier fortunes, bought high-rise condo's in the good parts of the city and little mansions out in suburbia. They absoulely WERE mobile, proof of this is that they are now long gone.
I should mention here, this isn't just about 'cities', you can make a ghetto in the suburbs too. In the case of France, that IS the suburbs we're looking at. In America it's mostly the cities, but the geography doesn't matter. There are good examples of 'ghettos' (actually, no, 'projects') in rural nowhere America - Indian reservations where alchoholism is rampant, crime is sky-high and suicide is off the charts.
But when the ghettos are ghettos and not projects, when the people are working, owning, ect., they just aren't as bad. They aren't really a problem. Poverty plagues MANY ethnicities, there are polish shanty towns in France and West Indian too, you don't see them rioting.
But when the Government owns the house, when it's a not JUST a ghetto but a ghettoized 'project', you get this sort of society springing up from it. EVERYWHERE you do it, EVERYTIME you do it, WHOMEVER you do it with, you allways end up with this.
So my solution is break them up. Spread them out. When the government provides free housing and welfare for people, don't provide it all in 1 building, or 1 city block. You put _1_ family, (not 2, not 10, not 2000), but 1 family in a $200,000.00 house in the middle of the suburbs next to a rich elementary school.
Now, will the jobless person who never had a (legitimate) job, who's parent's never had a (legitimate) job, who uses drugs, who had her first kid at the age of 14 and her 5th at 28, who dropped out in 4th grade...Is she going to change? Hell no. That life is allready wasted, and WHEREVER you put her she's probably going to generate problems. Now theres a CHANCE she won't, she MAY turn her life around, it DOES happen, but it's statistically miniscule. A snowballs chance in hell.
Part of the reason for lumping them all together in 1 spot is so we would know where they all are. That WAS part of the logic. Because we saw them as trouble and we wanted all the trouble in one place so we could easily keep an eye on it....whether or not that was justified or just racism back when the first projects were built...I would suggest racism honestly, because before the 'projects' they were just ghettos, and as I said above, those are better then projects. The idea that these people were trash, trouble, vagrants, lawless, ect.... It became a self-fulfilling prophacy, because of the nature of the environment they were placed in, and because of the density, uniformity of condition, and isolation, it now propagates itself.
Again, this shows to be true in France as well. The first generation immigrants are not the one's throwing bricks at police, the first immigration immigrants are actually quite grateful for the chance to live in the slums of the country, be outcast, and work thier asses off, because it's still better then what they faced back home. But what see what these conditions breed in the 2nd generation that is raised there, these are the ones that are angry, lawless, directionless, disparaged, violent, and down-right self destructive.
People are very sheepish, they (for the most part) tend to go along with the most part. Our 28 year old drug-using jobless mother of 5 might not ever reform because that's the life she was brought into, and tended (as most do) to go along with it. But her children, now going to nice rich schools, now going to friends houses and seeing the Sony's and gameboys and big screen plasmas and clean kitchens and living rooms, will want more from life, will not as readily settle.
Why did kids say things like 'dude'? Because other kids say things like 'dude'. Again, it's society, it's culture, and it's the social nature of humanity. They go along with what goes along. In a place where scarcely anyone has a good education, people do not speak well: they have bad grammar. Whene EVERYONE has bad grammar, you go along with what goes along, you speak with bad grammar even if you WERE educated to speak more properly. But move that child to an area where kids (on average) have better grammar, and the kid is going to talk like his/her friends talk, and right there you've improved thier grammar.
When you're 13 and ALL your friends smoke and stay out till 11, what do you want to do? Duh...smoke and stay out to 11. And when this kid turns 17 and ALL her friends are applying to 3 different colleges, guess what? She's gonna want to apply to colleges. College is universal, it's normal, it's almost unquestioned. She's gonna be MUCH more likely to try and get into college, MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to graduate high school.
So spread them out and integrate them into a better way of living. Surround them with the world where you want them to GO, not where you want them to leave from. Show them another way, surround them with another way.
The better of the 2 ways will prevail. Because of the nature of people to go along with the flow, 2 cultures can not co-exist with each other unless they are completely isolated from one another. Otherwise, they will merge. They will osmoze each other. They will blend. And people will take the better of the two, and the best from each.
But, if you're a multiculturalist, this is blasphemy. Fixing the problem is simply not an option. Band aids will have to do, until we find out how to force reality to conform to fantasy and create some utopia. That might happen right after we make cheeseburgers with ketchup, mustard and onions grow on trees.
Posted by MJohnson at November 11, 2005 05:25 PM
MJohnson,
Now I see your point. And what can I say, you made your point well, I definitely agree.
I think the reason these project neighborhood crop up in single units has to do with the politics of it. By which I don't mean ideology, but the fact that people tend to take a "not my neighborhood" mentality, and don't want poor people to bring down the property values next door. I believe that Delicate Thunder made a comment about section 8 housing along these lines in the 'Political Media Wars' thread...anyway, you know what I'm talking about.
Also, politicians like to have Big Projects (no pun intended) to show to the media and the people. Opening ten blocks of high-rise housing projects is something that has more impact than a program to subsidize housing costs for poor families. In essence, the political appeal of a housing project is similar to the appeal of a giant landfill in the next state: All our trash, over there.
Posted by Some Fella at November 13, 2005 01:57 PM
Does anyone else have moments of private embarrassment over taking part in conversations on this site?
Nope.
Im embarrassed that Sarge is technically human.
Awwwwww.....poor widdle college punk baby is embawassed. That's because you attach emotions to everything and have nothing to say other than pathetic ad hominems.
Fella you actually think Sarge has ever responded in a meaningful manner?
Not to you. You've earned every bit of disdain you receive. You say nothing and add nothing to any conversation, but at least you're consistant in your pathetic trolling and lying.
Fella....instead of using the "B" tag for "bold", use the "strong" tag for "bold" and all will be fine. I think this goes beyond the "project" and "ghetto" talk. Also what must be included is the fact that the ghettos and projects in question are filled with foreign people with a foreign culture and a foreign belief in foreign laws that doesn't jibe well with the cilvilized western world.
Posted by Sarge at November 14, 2005 09:48 AM
It is spelled embarrassed Sarge.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 14, 2005 10:12 AM
Section 8 housing does decrease the property value of those homes around it. Known fact. Would you like to dispute that?
I like how you tried to agree with MJ by taking what I said and villianizing it. Very cute, but ineffective. Please don't interpret my statements to fit your "racist" profile of me.
There's a big difference having these people in one area in mass quantity, and having one family living next door. I have several people on my street that I'm sure are on some sort of welfare, and yes there are occasional disturbances. I feel much safer in this situation than living next to a housing project.
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 14, 2005 10:39 AM
DT,
Why would I dispute what you were saying about lowering property values? I'm very confident that you were correct. I didn't villainize anything you said, I simply referred to it without changing the meaning, and I didn't apply any perjoratives to it, either. Nor did I characterize it as racist.
Now you are saying you prefer section 8 to housing projects, and that's good to hear, but it's new information for me. But you said you didn't want people on section 8 as your neighbors, bringing down the property values. And I don't think you're the only one who feels that way.
Most people don't live next to housing projects unless they are in the project, so it is a politically more feasible solution than section 8, where many people will have to live next door to poor people. When you say you'd rather live next to sec8 than projects, you imply that those are the only two choices. The more common choice is between living next to section8 and having a project on the other side of town. Which do you prefer? I'm asking, not assuming.
Nevertheless, in no way did I mischaracterize your statements or even say anything bad about them. So relax.
Posted by Some Fella at November 14, 2005 11:07 AM
Nope, you're mischaracterizing them now. You don't seem to understand how and I really don't have the energy to try to explain it to you. Although you may be slightly better spoken, you're really no different than matt and UY in how you spin what people say to fit your arguement. How about not bringing the things I say into the context of something different, especially to try to prove whatever point you might - or might not - have.
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 14, 2005 12:15 PM
DT,
I think my point stands quite well without citing you, so it doesn't really matter to me. You don't think I'm different from mattk or UY? That's funny, because I think they're different from each other. Maybe you just lump together all the people who disagree with you as "spinning", because how could they possibly be right?
Frankly, this is just a lame comment by you. I may be slightly better spoken? You don't have the energy to type? Terrible excuses for actually making a logical argument. When someone tells me I may be better spoken or better at debating than them, I know how to translate it: I can't beat you, but I'm too stubborn to admit you might have a point. Thus I'm going to accuse you of being glib and clever. But I will NEVER EVER admit that you have a point on even the tiniest of details. Believe me, I run into this ALL THE TIME. And no, not just from conservatives. It's just ego, plain and simple.
The context of what you said doesn't matter, because I didn't change the meaning. If I did, explain how...when you have enough "energy". Don't worry, I'm patient. I can wait forever.
In real life, I would never waste my time talking to you. You're way too close-minded and proud to ever consider that someone has a point. RIGHT NOW as you read this, you're fuming, thinking about how to attack my argument. Instead, you should be asking yourself if I have a point. But you won't. No, you can't.
It has nothing to do with how well I write. Nothing! My points are logical and well-thought out. Not only that, but I'm flexible, and I can admit when someone else has a good idea. You have no idea (and I really mean it, you don't) how much easier THAT makes it to argue. I am not forced to defend every single thing I've said, painting myself into a corner with increasingly absurd statements. I can say "Hmm, good point." And then I look like someone intelligent and confident enough to take another person's ideas seriously. And I am.
I made the mistake of arguing with you i.e. taking you seriously. Obviously, that was unjustified. You don't "speak well" so it's not a fair fight...at least, according to you. And you don't think or listen. Thus, what's the point? None. There are other people on this site who are a lot better at making points and also a lot better at give-and-take. I'll spend my time addressing them from now on.
Now go ahead and say how that's fine with you.
Posted by Some Fella at November 14, 2005 02:10 PM
DT its called interepreting.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 14, 2005 05:52 PM
I think you're the one who's fuming ;-)
And as far as ego... Better take a close look in the mirror, darlin.
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 15, 2005 09:03 AM
It sure took a long time to come up with such seemingly off-handed comments...guess you had to save up the energy, "darlin" ;-)
Posted by Some Fella at November 15, 2005 10:30 AM
It is spelled embarrassed Sarge.
Not when talking to pathetic widdle embawassed babies like you. BUT, since the only thing outside of throwing ad hominems you can do is play spelling games in lieu of actually commenting on something, might as well pay attention to your own fucked up spelling and grammar Mrs. "interepreting". What a fucking moron....or is it sheer hypocrisy? Expect everyone else to spell perfectly, but not yourself?
Posted by Sarge at November 15, 2005 12:20 PM
Relax.
Im just being a dick.
Posted by Um Yeah at November 15, 2005 02:52 PM
There's a bug surprise ;-D
Posted by Delicate Thunder at November 16, 2005 09:00 AM
There's a bug surprise ;-D
Yeah, I felt his comment could stand on its own without me actually having to agree with it. "Just being a dick" is his one and only purpose here.
Posted by Sarge at November 16, 2005 10:53 AM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
