This broad is a new columnist for my local newspaper, they were trying to even it out (all that liberal bias bullshit)....I think she will give Ann Coulter a run for her money.
Summed up, this is her take on how liberal policies like welfare and social programs created the problem of gang violence.
My take: I wanted to strangle this broad as I read this garbage. Perfect example of 'imprison first, educate last' mentality. She ignores the correlation between the increase in crime and the decrease in spending on summer programs. Simply put: our Gov. (Pawlenty) cut social programs, education, and health care so he didn't have to raise taxes for rich Minnesotans. (Mind you, he lowered taxes for the most wealthy, and raised taxes via 'fees' that disproportionately affect poor people)
Since that happened, crime increased. But, of course, it's the fault of parents who don't teach their heathen kids to act right and not be criminals. But, rich kids do the same things, but it's ok because they have better connections and more money, so they can get away with it....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.startribune.com/stories/191/5511376.html
Close window
Last update: July 17, 2005 at 7:23 PM
Roots of gang violence feed off '60s
Published July 18, 2005
Gang violence is on the rise in Minneapolis again. Homicides in 2005 are up about 45 percent vs. this time last year. Criminals are increasingly young and brazen. Recently, a 15-year-old boy was shot dead in broad daylight.
What's to be done? The ideas are familiar. Better policing could make a real difference. (The city's proposal for 60 new officers will help.) But on the social policy front, we hear -- yet again -- calls for more money for summer jobs, extended recreation center hours and the like.
Jobs and rec centers are fine things. But the gang problem would likely persist if we had a 24-hour gymnasium on every block.
Last week, papers carried the story of a gang rape in California. Six teenagers assaulted a 13-year-old girl in a park restroom about 11:30 a.m., while a crowd of boys and young men cheered. Presumably, lots of rec centers were open at that time of day.
Behind our debate over how to deal with gangs is a clash of world views. Many people in social service agencies or university faculty rooms see human beings as basically good and naturally cooperative. They view crime and violence as aberrations, and essentially a result of injustice. If people are given opportunities (jobs and rec centers), they reason, they are likely to behave peacefully and rationally.
Ordinary citizens view human nature more realistically. They see their 2-year-old throw a tantrum over a Popsicle, or their spouse cut someone off in rush-hour traffic, and recognize that tendencies toward selfishness and aggression are innate and universal.
The California gang rapists are not creatures from another planet. But if we all start life with certain tendencies in common with them, why don't most of us behave like them?
The answer is rooted in culture and family. Most of us learned to control our aggressive, antisocial impulses as youngsters. Our mothers taught us empathy. Our fathers taught us not to hit our sister. We don't steal tennis shoes at the mall, but it's not because we fear the police. We police ourselves, exercising the conscience and self-control we were taught.
Kids in gangs often start life differently. Many have young, unmarried mothers, some of whom are high school dropouts or drug abusers. Few have fathers who insist they get home on time or do their homework. As a result, they develop neither a strong moral code nor the ability to control their aggressive impulses. They may well be economically poor, but most economically poor people are honest, decent and peaceful. The poverty that produces gangs is social, moral and spiritual.
A lonely, morally adrift young man drawn to the sense of belonging a gang offers him for the first time in his life -- not to mention thrills and easy money -- isn't likely to be tempted by a low-wage job cleaning a park in the hot sun. And he likely lacks the self-discipline to keep such a job anyway.
The underclass culture that has spawned homicidal youth gangs is relatively new. It didn't exist in this form in the 1930s, for example, when poverty was much more widespread. What has changed?
For one thing, the 1960s "cultural revolution" happened. Some of America's most privileged citizens led it -- intellectuals, lawyers and entertainment executives. They urged Americans to shake off the shackles of "bourgeois" norms -- the very qualities that had helped generations rise from poverty to the middle class.
The '60s revolution was about personal "liberation." Recreational sex? "Make love, not war." Drugs? "Whatever turns you on." Teachers, parents and police? "Challenge authority."
The '60s also launched the War on Poverty. Though well-intentioned, it created incentives for self-destructive behavior such as out-of-wedlock childbearing and welfare dependence. Its mantra was that the poor are victims without responsibilities, whose behavior has nothing to do with their plight.
Flipping burgers for low pay to get work experience? A chump's game.
Americans of all social backgrounds are still dealing with the fallout of the '60s. But when middle-class kids experiment with marijuana or sexual promiscuity, they can generally rally and survive. Most have the social, educational and financial resources to get back on track.
But the '60s revolution encouraged behavior that prevents the poor from overcoming their disadvantages. The sexual revolution, coupled with welfare policy, has decimated the family in underclass neighborhoods. There, drugs overwhelm their users instead of providing Friday night entertainment. When people's lives are already on the edge, irresponsible behavior can send them off the cliff.
The debilitating attitudes of the '60s are still with us, too often amplified by the entertainment, advertising and business communities.
It's hard to discourage underclass 15-year-olds from getting pregnant when Paris Hilton and Abercrombie & Fitch celebrate recreational sex. It's hard to discourage gang violence when "Grand Theft Auto" -- a best-selling video game -- rewards players for shooting policemen.
As we contemplate youth gangs, it's time to contemplate our own contribution to the problem.
Katherine Kersten is at
kkersten@startribune.com.
© Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Summed up, this is her take on how liberal policies like welfare and social programs created the problem of gang violence.
My take: I wanted to strangle this broad as I read this garbage. Perfect example of 'imprison first, educate last' mentality. She ignores the correlation between the increase in crime and the decrease in spending on summer programs. Simply put: our Gov. (Pawlenty) cut social programs, education, and health care so he didn't have to raise taxes for rich Minnesotans. (Mind you, he lowered taxes for the most wealthy, and raised taxes via 'fees' that disproportionately affect poor people)
Since that happened, crime increased. But, of course, it's the fault of parents who don't teach their heathen kids to act right and not be criminals. But, rich kids do the same things, but it's ok because they have better connections and more money, so they can get away with it....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.startribune.com/stories/191/5511376.html
Close window
Last update: July 17, 2005 at 7:23 PM
Roots of gang violence feed off '60s
Published July 18, 2005
Gang violence is on the rise in Minneapolis again. Homicides in 2005 are up about 45 percent vs. this time last year. Criminals are increasingly young and brazen. Recently, a 15-year-old boy was shot dead in broad daylight.
What's to be done? The ideas are familiar. Better policing could make a real difference. (The city's proposal for 60 new officers will help.) But on the social policy front, we hear -- yet again -- calls for more money for summer jobs, extended recreation center hours and the like.
Jobs and rec centers are fine things. But the gang problem would likely persist if we had a 24-hour gymnasium on every block.
Last week, papers carried the story of a gang rape in California. Six teenagers assaulted a 13-year-old girl in a park restroom about 11:30 a.m., while a crowd of boys and young men cheered. Presumably, lots of rec centers were open at that time of day.
Behind our debate over how to deal with gangs is a clash of world views. Many people in social service agencies or university faculty rooms see human beings as basically good and naturally cooperative. They view crime and violence as aberrations, and essentially a result of injustice. If people are given opportunities (jobs and rec centers), they reason, they are likely to behave peacefully and rationally.
Ordinary citizens view human nature more realistically. They see their 2-year-old throw a tantrum over a Popsicle, or their spouse cut someone off in rush-hour traffic, and recognize that tendencies toward selfishness and aggression are innate and universal.
The California gang rapists are not creatures from another planet. But if we all start life with certain tendencies in common with them, why don't most of us behave like them?
The answer is rooted in culture and family. Most of us learned to control our aggressive, antisocial impulses as youngsters. Our mothers taught us empathy. Our fathers taught us not to hit our sister. We don't steal tennis shoes at the mall, but it's not because we fear the police. We police ourselves, exercising the conscience and self-control we were taught.
Kids in gangs often start life differently. Many have young, unmarried mothers, some of whom are high school dropouts or drug abusers. Few have fathers who insist they get home on time or do their homework. As a result, they develop neither a strong moral code nor the ability to control their aggressive impulses. They may well be economically poor, but most economically poor people are honest, decent and peaceful. The poverty that produces gangs is social, moral and spiritual.
A lonely, morally adrift young man drawn to the sense of belonging a gang offers him for the first time in his life -- not to mention thrills and easy money -- isn't likely to be tempted by a low-wage job cleaning a park in the hot sun. And he likely lacks the self-discipline to keep such a job anyway.
The underclass culture that has spawned homicidal youth gangs is relatively new. It didn't exist in this form in the 1930s, for example, when poverty was much more widespread. What has changed?
For one thing, the 1960s "cultural revolution" happened. Some of America's most privileged citizens led it -- intellectuals, lawyers and entertainment executives. They urged Americans to shake off the shackles of "bourgeois" norms -- the very qualities that had helped generations rise from poverty to the middle class.
The '60s revolution was about personal "liberation." Recreational sex? "Make love, not war." Drugs? "Whatever turns you on." Teachers, parents and police? "Challenge authority."
The '60s also launched the War on Poverty. Though well-intentioned, it created incentives for self-destructive behavior such as out-of-wedlock childbearing and welfare dependence. Its mantra was that the poor are victims without responsibilities, whose behavior has nothing to do with their plight.
Flipping burgers for low pay to get work experience? A chump's game.
Americans of all social backgrounds are still dealing with the fallout of the '60s. But when middle-class kids experiment with marijuana or sexual promiscuity, they can generally rally and survive. Most have the social, educational and financial resources to get back on track.
But the '60s revolution encouraged behavior that prevents the poor from overcoming their disadvantages. The sexual revolution, coupled with welfare policy, has decimated the family in underclass neighborhoods. There, drugs overwhelm their users instead of providing Friday night entertainment. When people's lives are already on the edge, irresponsible behavior can send them off the cliff.
The debilitating attitudes of the '60s are still with us, too often amplified by the entertainment, advertising and business communities.
It's hard to discourage underclass 15-year-olds from getting pregnant when Paris Hilton and Abercrombie & Fitch celebrate recreational sex. It's hard to discourage gang violence when "Grand Theft Auto" -- a best-selling video game -- rewards players for shooting policemen.
As we contemplate youth gangs, it's time to contemplate our own contribution to the problem.
Katherine Kersten is at
kkersten@startribune.com.
© Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
