Pulling oneself up by their bootstraps is a literal impossibility. It was coined as a term of impossibility. The definition of an exercise in futility. Ironic that the corporate overlords ran with it and sold their followers on it... because of course, it's in the best interest of the elite to play their subjects against one another. And you're proud to choose that over a proven solution that has reduced crime by 70% in a US city, for over a decade...
lol...more semantics? ...might wanna learn the difference between "literally and "figuratively". I wasn't the one who brought the phrase into this thread and then decided to play word games with it. Well of course "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps"a physical impossibility if you want to dissect it literally. (again, that wasn't me) It is a phrase that means "to improve your situation by your own efforts, without help from anyone else" and that was obviously my point. Here, want some more examples of phrases/idioms that are literal impossibilities; "when pigs have wings", ..."When Hell freezes over"..."Rain cats and dogs"...etc. Go and play with them for a while and then if desired, resort to more grammatical gymnastics, or better yet, ...stick to the actual point of the thread.
Great retort...no dispute of what I said, just more comics...how compelling. And Camden has not reduced overall crime by "70%" over the last decade...nice try.
You've been brainwashed into believing things that can't work are good courses of action. You've literally argued for the same thing that doesn't work instead of a huge reduction in crime and a huge reduction in police abuses. And you're proud of that. It's comedy. Or it would be, if it weren't so sad.
So you admit your inflated numbers were wrong, right? I have never said or implied that Camden's actions didn't help in some types of crime, only that the "model" is not agreeable or practical for most other cities and there are valid reasons why, and I'm sure you are aware of this but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them and admit it. Has Camden improved?...yes, to a degree in some areas, but still "has miles to go", even they admit that. Camden was so bad originally that it couldn't get much worse, so the only way to go was up. More than doubling the size of its police force is the answer for Camden and other cities?...no, I don't believe that's the answer. Hell, some crimes have flat lined recently and some have even increased recently, and I'm sure you also know that. Camden is still a miserable shit hole.
My apologies. Only a 70% reduction in homicides... Places with high poverty rates are going to be shit holes. That's how it works. No police force in the world can solve that. They can only hope to help without causing more problems than they solve. The old model was very obviously far less helpful than than the new model. If bootstraps is your solution, well that sounds a lot like you should support defunding the police in general. After all, government that governs less governs best...
lol...still hung up on "boot straps"?...and still can't grasp the difference of what it signifies between "literally" and "figuratively"? ...Again, I wasn't the one who interjected that phrase into this thread, and I wasn't the one who arbitrarily decided to take in a literal" sense. And no, I'm not for "defunding the police" either, all I said about the police was that simply throwing money at the problem is not a viable long term solution. But Camden bummed 6 times their own budget from the state of New Jersey in order to hire and rehire cops/"bastards" that resulted in having more than doubling the number of cops than they had before. Try going back and reread what I said and fully digest it instead of making things up by trying to translate my words into yours. #918
Maybe you're catching on then. Nobody is suggesting "simply throwing money" at anything. We have a solution that has been proven to work in other countries as well as in the US. You're blasting it because it wasn't better enough, even though they saw homicide rates decline 70% from the "less government" model. And you're blasting it without suggesting an alternative. Hard to take it seriously.
"catching on"?...please. But throwing money at the problem is exactly what Camden did...they used money to more than double the "bastard cops" they had before. And I did suggest an alternative..."local activism", the locals need to come together and actually interact with their neighbors and actually take stock in their community. Yeah, it may take a while but it might well be worth it, better than living in a police state. ...IMO, "salvation lies within" and not with the police. (hence "That government which governs least, governs best")...Again, go back and read. #918
Ok, fair enough. Could you please provide a verifiable example where "local activism" has ever reduced crime rates as much as Camden has over a decade?
Can you please provide another verified example of Camden's experiment before it was actually attempted?...no, of course not, because it had never happened before. There multiple cases of communities banding together to fight crime..and it has worked. On a smaller scale than Camden?, yes, but who's to say it won't work on a larger scale? The key is finding a way to apply it on a larger scale by getting a large percentage of citizens from a larger area to unite and sign on with it. Local citizens could easily do this...but again, the difficulty is convincing the that it can in fact, work. There are many Camden resident who are still not happy with what was crammed down their throats. For one, larger majority of the new/rehired cops are white but white Camden residents only make up 6% of the population...if you were a black Camden resident, would you consider that equitable? I probably wouldn't and if the city leaders truly wanted the best results it seems to me that the cops hired/rehired should be as close as possible, to the same ratios/demographics of the local residents.
There are literally hundreds of cities spread across many countries who use versions of that model all over the world successfully. Check out Germany and nearly any Nordic or Scandinavian country. Newark did a half measure in 2015 and have seen some success as well. But Newark didn't have as bad of a problem with their police. They literally shifted $11 million from the police budget to an office of violence prevention. An example of "defunding the police"... They did do substantial layoffs as well. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/...baraka-discuss-policing-in-newark-new-jersey/ Your turn. Would love to read some verifiable accounts of cities following your suggested model!
Here we go again, comparing US culture to Scandinavian culture....apples and oranges. Why not compare the US to the Far East? And again, much of Newark's and Camden's early success was partially due to a downturn in crime in general within the state and much of the nation too. And have you not paid attention to what I've already said before?...How do I prove a negative?...How do I prove something works that has not even been tried yet? How many times do I have to say again what I have already said/addressed? Seems that you either can't remember or are purposely being obtuse.
So we should not use methods that have resulted in lower crime rates than comparable areas, over seas as well as here in the US (everywhere it has been tried), but should instead try something that has never worked anywhere, and you don't know if it has ever even been tried. I am not convinced...
For about the 3rd time, stop making things up. I never said that...but what I have said is that the Camden "model" has not been adopted/applied in other cities for various reason, of which I'm sure you're aware. And again, you seem to be ignoring/forgetting what I have already said...is it intentional? Like I already stated, there have been multiple cases where citizens have banded together and worked along side "bastard cops" to reduce crime. Even Camden's experiment didn't really gain much traction until after the people within the community became "locally active". Simply bumming money from the state and throwing it at the problem and firing/rehiring and then doubling the size of the police force like Camden did, alone, will not have a long term effect unless the citizens of that town/area are actively involved too.
Interesting...what is your best example of this? I would like an opportunity to look into that and see how it worked. I'm so dissatisfied with that state of policing in Portland; I'd love to see if a successful community policing model from another city might be effective here too.
After your previous quote of my post, I don't really think that's what you're really after...if you're truly dissatisfied with Portland's "bastard cops", why not simply apply Camden's "model"...use state money to more than double the size of it's police department?...problem solved.
My previous quote saying that "why haven't they tried it elsewhere" is a weak logical position? Yeah, I'm going to stand by that. But you're making some poor assumptions about me. Nowhere in this thread have I advocated for or against any one side. I know nothing about the Camden model that PGR argues so vehemently in favor of, and in the very few times I have posted on anything political in this forum, I have always posted on the side of fiscal conservatism (I'm an accountant; it's my nature). A solution that is based more in community involvement rather than government intervention is naturally going to appeal to that aspect of my character. I've also never supported the "ACAB" position; my issue with the state of Portland's policing is the lack of support the police get from the public, the constant vitriol the police are faced with day after day, the fact that the public they seek to serve are more likely to obstruct them than cooperate with them, and the fact that all those factors (and others) have contributed to a shortage of personnel available to actually address crime in Portland. Of course, the inability of the court system to actually prosecute criminals is also a major hindrance, but that's another issue altogether. So, given that backdrop, might you be willing to actually address my inquiry rather than fire unnecessary potshots?
