December 07, 2013

A waste of time and money

My hometown of Wilmington, DE is asking the federal Centers for Disease Control to "study" the problem of violence in the city.

Really. Is there a dopier move that could be made by the city council? I mean, look at this:

Councilman Robert A. Williams, a former city police lieutenant, said the city must take “any means necessary” to solve the problem, including “reaching out to any entity – federal, state or local.” "We need any answers we can get our hands on,” he said.

Councilwoman Maria D. Cabrera – also resolution co-sponsor – said she, too, hopes the CDC will study the city’s violence, which she called “an embarrassment” to the home state of the vice president of the United States.

Councilwoman Hanifa G.N. Shabazz’s resolution called it “imperative that national attention be given to the violence,’’ urging the agency that is “charged to protect Americans from health and safety threats ... [to] examine and respond to the current surge in gun violence and help mitigate the effects it has on our children and youth.”

Shabazz also mentioned that "While some Delaware government officials might view city lawmakers proposing solutions as 'squawking council members,'’ if the CDC conducted such a study, they might pay more attention to findings and possible solutions."

Actually, those "some Delaware government officials" would be spot-on. This is nothing but squawking. Think about Occam's Razor, Ms. Shabazz. You can study this problem until Ragnarok, but the solution will always be the same: Stable, two-parent families. The article goes on to note the conclusions of a previous CDC study of 50 metro areas:

That report suggested several possible strategies to reduce gun violence, such as early education, school-based programs, parent- and family-based initiatives, and efforts to improve school, neighborhood and community environments.

In essence then, the government should supplant the role of the parent. Which, if that is truly what you wish, fine. But then finding the means (i.e. money) by which to implement the solution will be exceedingly difficult. Why? Well, for one, times are tough. But two, why should people who actually live their lives as, y'know, they're supposed to -- only have kids they can actually care for, live within their means, don't demand others do "stuff" for them, etc. -- have to ante up for those who don't?

Of course, "living lives the way we're 'supposed' to" may be taking on an entirely different meaning in this day and age. It's becoming not only a political difference, but more a generational one as well. And, of course, I am in no way referring to those who truly require assistance, those who've encountered difficult times through no fault of their own (like mothers whose husbands have abandoned them, for example). Nevertheless, you do not need a bunch of social scientists to study this problem. Instead, get these same scientists to propose ways to encourage -- even demand -- stable family relationships. The black illegitimacy rate is over 70 percent. 70 percent! That figure is, frankly, astonishing. And no, it has nothing to do with the vestiges of slavery and legal discrimination of the Jim Crow era, because in 1940, for example, the black illegitimacy rate was a mere 19 percent. I think everyone can agree that anti-black discrimination and prejudice were much worse in 1940 than in 2013.

The obstacles that such a pronouncement would face should by now be obvious: 1) the "progressive" Left would have a cow about the "stable two-parent family" stipulation. After all, making such ... moral judgments is anathema to them. Remember, nothing is "superior" to anything else; 2) it's been "progressives" who're largely responsible for the [dependency] situation in big cities; and, lastly, 3) any claim that education is "underfunded" is usually specious. Some large cities spend more per pupil than some [affluent] suburban areas. Of course, a lot of this city school funding is due to the special programs needed for remediation, but then this goes right back to the main point about lack of parental structure. I've had numerous foreign parents tell me over the years that back home (in their home -- [much] less affluent -- country), they would kill (figuratively, natch) to have the materials, technology and support in their classrooms and schools that we have here. Merely throwing cash at education does squat. Again, I give you the Kansas City Experiment.

Save your money, city council, and your bluster. For such a serious matter, it's boring already.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments, it's head-scratching the News Journal did not bother to note that Ms. Shabazz's comments about "post-traumatic stress" in the article had more to them. As Kilroy notes, she attributed the PTS to slavery.

Wait -- I do know why the Journal edited this out.

Posted by Hube at December 7, 2013 10:14 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Yes there is a dopier move available. You could blame the whole problem on the aftermath of slavery, thereby making it an issue of race rather than poverty and personal behavior.

But nobody would be stupid enough to do that.

What? Oh.

Never mind.

Posted by: Steve Newton at December 7, 2013 10:26 AM

Just saw Ms. Shabazz did just that via a link at Kilroy's. Ye gad ...

Posted by: Hube at December 7, 2013 10:28 AM

Interesting how the News Journal neglected to add "from slavery" after "post-traumatic stress" from Ms. Shabazz's comments. Wonder why?

Posted by: Hube at December 7, 2013 10:36 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?