The issue is that witnesses came forward immediately after the Cafe Racer shootings and the shooting at Folklife. The police finally figured out who was behind a gang shooting outside a club in Belltown several years ago, only by checking cell phone records. None of the gang bangers or the dozens of people who witnessed the incident and the incidents leading up to it came forward to help identify the shooter. http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/06/01/gang-unit-tracks-down-gunman-wanted-in-nightclub-ambush/

The police can't keep them safe unless they help the police catch the people who are shooting up South Seattle.

There is really no comparing the Café Racer tragedy to what is going on in South Seattle. Yes, they both have to do with gun violence but gang violence is a much different thing. The gangs and drug dealers in the south end run in groups and they live in the neighborhood. The potential witnesses live in the neighborhood. A witness knows that if they talk to the police and one of those gang members find out, they are as good as dead. They know that the police cannot protect them. It’s much different than a single random shooter going into a coffee shop. Most people who live in the south end are hardworking people who own their homes just like in the rest of Seattle. They would love to have a safe place to live. They would be more than willing to come forward if they felt secure in doing so. Seattle leaders have failed my community for decades. They continuously focus energy on the wrong things. I don’t have all of the answers. It has to be a collaborative effort for sure. Residents, politicians and police must all be involved. The last thing Seattle needs is to be divided by comments and attitudes that blame the community of victims who deal with such violence daily.

Get real. The minute the cops actually did what needs to be done in your neighborhood, the self-appointed guardians of social justice would go crazy.

Everyone in your neighborhood knows who the dealers and gang bangers are. They could be targeted and eliminated in short order but for the bed wetters who'd scream about brutality if the cops went in with guns drawn and firing if need be.

We would never, ever hear the end of it from your neighborhood. It would be a complete orgy of recriminations and lawsuits, and everyone knows it. Until the people in your neighborhood say, "Enough!" and then effectively signal their willingness to have the police do what needs to be done, you'll be jabbering forever.

I realize that you don't want to hear it, but it's true and you know it. If you want to get rid of the bad element, you'll need to allow the police to apply rough justice.

¶1 These statements depend on "what needs to be done" being the same as unconstitutional. I think more people than "the self-appointed guardians of social justice" would "go crazy" over unconstitutional policing of our neighborhoods.

¶2 The police likely know who they are too, but the police and the prosecutors face a shortage of resources. If people put their whining where their money was and assented to more tax dollars for both the police and the justice system, this problem not exist.

It is unclear why "bed wetting" is mentioned. Presumably it is an ad hominem attack on those you believe disagree with you.

¶3 In the situations you describe, the only parties who would have standing to sue the police would be those who were under arrest and subject to "what needs to be done." What a neighborhood decides has no effect on whether someone who was abused by law enforcement exercises their right to sue under 42 USC §1983.

Additionally, civil rights violations, and the resulting lawsuits are drastically under perused because of the nature of system. Civil rights lawyers do not get paid unless they win their suits. Hence, only the most obvious civil rights violations ever gets sued upon.

¶4 Finally the author begins advocating "rough justice" as the only proven solution to persistent crime. This is plainly incorrect.

Taking money from The Rest of the City won't make up for bad parenting in The Unrest of the City.

@bluelight. I am a professional woman, a homeowner, and an 11 year resident of Rainier Beach, Seattle, and an excellent parent. Most of my close friends--also educated professional parents--are residents of the Rainier Valley. I pay property taxes and a portion of my property taxes helps pay for city services and programs in other areas of the city that I do not benefit from. That is how taxes work. In Rainier Beach, we need more policing than other areas of the city, and it's the entire city's responsibility to pay for that. That is how taxes work.

To blame it on "bad parenting" reveals your ignorance and bigotry toward the people who live in this area of the city. Thank you for being honest; I appreciate it when people are willing to admit to their racism, classism, and their other prejudices and stereotypes.

This unwillingness to pay taxes is an attitude that has become very problematic in our society--this unwillingness to pay taxes, unless one benefits from the tax spending directly. It's led to a decrease in quality of life for our society as a whole.

Honestly, I can't see why you wouldn't move out of that area then. If more police are sent down there, the anti-police forces will start screaming harassment. And the community (not necessarily "bad parents") retains a lot of responsibility for allowing this condition to develop. These thugs are someone's children, nephews, neighbors. Take action, exert moral authority, provide information to the police.

Interesting article; and a different perspective than usually presented. Elsewhere (in different channels) I see articles decrying differential policing as indicative of racial/socio-economic profiling; a perspective reinforced by the "reception" provided to officers as they respond to various calls (also mentioned by talisker, above).

It would be great to see a pro and con/debate style article between someone (with a perspective) like Neale and someone more "pro-personal-responsibility".

With the commonly seen viewpoint that greater presence (synonymous with enforcement?) leads to the perception that the people of south Seattle are being "unfairly" targeted, it's hard for me to understand the right course of action.

Yes, so long as one group is yelling about differential policing in the neighborhood, so long as people stone police arriving to help a victim, aso long as people refuse to provide evidence, there is no reason for more police to be sent to Rainier Valley. You can't have it both ways.

If a person not from this area looked at a map, he would think that South Seattle would be among the wealthiest and toniest neighborhoods in the State. Perfectly situated for transit downtown. Nice hilly neighborhoods. Plenty of classic and modern homes.

But from the Nickles area, that of course is the last thing they want to happen. Increasing the liveable neighborhoods defeats the schemes of the densifiers who have to claim "exceptionalism" for their high priced vertically rising condos.

If all the Sneetches get stars...then stars are no longer valuable. You see.

To preserve the euro, Germans have to work until age 67-68 so that the Greeks can retire at 50; to preserve Seattle, the bulk of the city must give up its 'fair share' of resources and manpower so as to help a few square miles in South Seattle??

You're getting close to enlightenment, but you have the issue flip-flopped. The 'bulk of the city', as you call it, has been living in an artificially non-minority, non-poverty status for too long. The real world isn't YOUR neighborhood. Neither is the real world South Seattle. The real world is somewhere in-between. City leaders, under pressure by voters, have protected and preserved neighborhoods north of the ship canal from their fare share of the city's social burden for 7 decades. Every community needs to share the city's social burden. Too many posts here display an us-versus-them attitude. We're all in this together, folks. The crime in South Seattle has now crossed the line, and is coming to a neighborhood near you. The solution? Disperse the city's social burden equitably, and thereby reduce crime. That's what the data shows. Who's going to sign-up to have a low-income mother with three children, on public assistance, living next door to them?

So now it's threats: "The crime in South Seattle has now crossed the line, and is coming to a neighborhood near you."

Okey-dokey, let's talk then. It's only a matter of time until one or more of the gang bangers robs the wrong person, or invades the wrong house. They'll learn that a frightened but armed homeowner, in the middle of the night, is far more lethal than a police officer.

If Home Depot justice, i.e., do-it-yourself, becomes common, the 911 calls will be from criminals wanting mercy from the cops.

An "artificially non-minority, non-poverty status"? Gee, most of us think of it as working hard, following the law, and getting a nice house in a nice neighborhood. Why would a neighborhood have a "fair share" of the city's "social burden"? How exactly do you plan to determine what constitutes a fair share? I mean, the entire idea is nuts. The people of South Seattle need to stop the killing in South Seattle. It's mostly kids and mostly kids killing kids. And why should anyone be forced to have a low-income mother of htree living next door??

I looked up some stats, since SFPD was repeatedly brought up, because I thought that's what the author was trying to communicate.

The ratio of SFPD officers per capita is one-officer for every 530 San Franciscans, while the ratio in Seattle is one-officer for every 473 Seattlites. That doesn't seem to indicate that SF puts a higher priority on policing than we do.

Maybe that wasn't your point?

However, deployment, as Neale would know, is influenced by 911 calls and crime reports. There is less trust in government to act or be able to help in the south-end (where I happen to live), resulting in a lower rate of 911 calls. It's well known that this results in more patrol resources going to places like University Place, where every drunken frat-boy generates a host of calls.

Neale, a long-time block-watch captain, you and I know this is an issue. But I'm not following you on the proposed solution.

Okay, Masshole, so let's talk about this.

The people in the C.D. don't trust the cops, so they won't call the cops. And then they're mad because there are no cops? Of course, "trusting" the cops means, in practice, that the cops agree not to enforce the law. So what's the point of a "trust" exercise anyway?

If you put people in Catch-22 situations, don't be surprised when they turn their backs, and start arming themselves. I think you'd be shocked to know how much of Seattle is self-patrolled by Smith & Wesson. Liberalism tends to end once the crook breaks down the door.

If people in the south end want more law and order, they're going to have to decide they want it, and effectively signal to the police and the city government that they've had it with the criminal element, and will cry no tears, nor demand the dotting of Is or the crossing of Ts, when they enforce the law.

Unless you're prepared to do that, you will get what you've always gotten. Oddly enough, if we do wind up deteriorating toward do-it-yourself policing, one of the consequences will be far less regard for perpetrators and their rights.

You see, as a homeowner, the minute you step inside my house I can make modern art of you all over my living room wall. I don't need to follow police procedure. You can whine your poor little head off about that, but the first politician who tries to change it will, figuratively speaking, find him- or herself stuffed and mounted in the political graveyard.

People need to get real about policing. It's not some sort of exact science. At some point, it's a controlled beat down, in hopes of avoiding something much worse. Take your pick.

People in South Seattle don't call 911? Please show me the stats on that. If it's true, it's another example of what South Seattle has to change--not the SPD. Get out on the streets, rein in the kids, report crime, call 911, cooperate with the police.

This is a well written article with an interesting perspective; one of which I had not thought. Most of the comments also have useful perspectives.

This is the type of commentary and discussion for which I joined Croostalk several years ago. It goes a ways to reassure me that this venue has not become a political "Jonny One Note".

Good to see an accurate analysis of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." This city is smart alright, so smart, they often outsmart themselves and miss the mark by a wide margin. I see it frequently manifested in a lot of ways.

Unlike the "see, people in their own community cared enough to see something and say something" rationale. You actually have to have both an appropriate police presence, and police behaving effectively--not authoriarian and unconstitutionally, but you still cannot discount the effect that a poor economy in general has upon crime. Not everyone has the same opportunities, therefore you still need social services and educational support as well.

Unfortunately, this balance is not in the cards in the forseable future, so even when the police presence is there, the problems move elsewhere. It's another form of NIMBYism in the end, and does not address the root causes, because those causes are too big for one city to address. So, people feel like they are "doing something" but it's only a finger in the dike. Gentrification was supposed to solve this in Columbia City and the Rainer Valley, like it has improved the Central District. It obviously has not, and it has only provided richer targets.

However, the analysis goes off a cliff from there.

Using NYC as an example is terrible. You do realize the stop and frisk was confrimed to be unconstitutional there recently? There are certainly other effective ways to deal with this and that stay within Constitutional bounds. This is not an intractable problem. It's not necessarily the number of Cops, it's how they are used and where. People won't feel "unfairly targeted" when LE is not behaving that way. Bloomberg is a neoliberal, not a progressive in any sense of the word. And the NYPD policy is reflected in that.

Studying crime stats is not going to tell you what you need to know to address the root causes. Enforcing the existing firearms laws will go farther than creating new ones that won't have much affect.

Fortunately the analysis recovers in the last two paragraphs. You do need basic safety and security in order to focus upon higher needs. The debate should be over how that is accomplished.

Well gee, what is the root cause (not that we could fix it but just for a reference point)? I think it's odd that the Department of Justice lawsuit against the Seattle Police was not mentioned either in the article or in the comments. It may not have any direct bearing on the street crime issue but I'm sure the very fact of the suit encourages those who decline to cooperate with police investigations ("never help whitey"). It also bears mentioning that four or five police officers have been killed in the last 18 months or so. If some people hate cops bad enough to kill them it does make a policeman's job a lot harder, more difficult, more dangerous, less rewarding.
Do you think that could make a difference? I do.

It's hard to take anyone seriously who cites Roger Valdez about anything. But he is a bloated, self-interested, scheming "progressive" in good standing with the mayor and the real estate lobby, which I guess is enough to qualify you as Someone Who Should Be Listened To in this city.

Add more police? Yeah, and let's just see what the "social justice" establishment around here will say if that ever happened. If you really want to reduce crime, you go after the 20% of the criminals who do 80% of the work, and lock them up until they're in their 40s. We've done some of that in recent decades, so crime rates have come down. There is more to do, but until the "social justice" lobby is willing to confront crime, the outlook is grim.

Specifically, the police ought to be given a much freer hand to go after the drug gangs. But most of their members are "people of color," i.e., black, Mexican, or Vietnamese, so the race card is always played. Which always ends up in a demand for more money for the next "non profit" that pays its executive director so nicely.

The Cafe Racer shooter was a common nutcase. Happy pills (anti-depressants) are a cheap investment. They should be free for the poor, and their consumption backed by stronger anti-vagrancy laws and enforcement. Enter the same "social justice" establishment. So, as a result, the burghers of Seattle throw up their hands and retreat to their enclaves. What else do you expect?

If you want more money, the answer is "No."

"our most basic values like, don’t kill, don’t steal, and more broadly, value others as important as yourself, still matter."

Says who? I have to guess that the "culture of violence" is far worse that any thing I can imagine. Furthermore, our police who live daily on its front lines can not help but be frustrated, each and every one of them. What is easy for me to imagine is that the Dept. of Justice is not dealing with savage cops, but PTSD.

The author makes the standard Alinsky rant about rejecting the short-end of fellow progressives' response to the urgent need's of his community and in doing so he manages to bad mouth the asset-based approach of John McKnight, the other Obama community mentor. I do agree, when a permissive, hyperconsuming, get-rich-quick society reduces "DON"T SHOOT, VALUE OTHERS AS IMPORTANT AS YOURSELF" to lip service and refuses to even talk about having done so, it is very hard to think of oneself as solving problems with assets other than a gang and a gun.

Fact is people have been talking about it AND doing something about it: http://seattle.bibliocommons.com/item/show/2730308030_dont_shoot

There is a smug, elitist attitude evident in the comments here. Too many people just don't 'get it'. "The rest of the city" enjoys a comfortable, safer, and more civilized existence because SE Seattle is the dumping ground for all manner of social problems. The Ravenna neighborhood has a poverty rate of just over 1%, while Rainier Beach has a poverty rate of 25%. That's because city leaders have red-lined poverty to Rainier Beach. Poverty and crime are inseparable, and that's well-documented. The Rainier Valley, 98118, is also the most diverse zip code in the United States. How does Seattle, the 23rd largest city, end up with the "most-diverse" zip code in the nation? That just didn't happen by accident. Did you know that the U.S. Census data places Seattle on the list of the "50 most-segregated" cities in the U.S.?

Don't blame gang violence. Don't blame the anti-snitch culture. Don't blame minorities. Don't act so smug. Don't be naive. This is everyone's problem, and it has very little to do with guns. The problem is the priorities of city leaders ---and residents--- to take the easy way out, exempting themselves from responsibility to do what's right.

So-called progressive and naive Seattleites point the finger at 'you people' and blame the Rainier Valley residents for their own problems. Shame on you, you know better that that. You owe your comfy, safer neighborhoods to the fact that an entire city's social ills have been wedged into one corner of the city, concentrated there, and ignored. Every imaginable problem has been dumped in the SE corner of the city for 60 years. Why? Because no other neighborhood will accept their fair share of the city's social burden. Look at the push-back from Magnolia, for example. The city wants to put more transitional housing for families at the old Fort Lawton site, and Magnolia residents call out the lawyers to stop it. City leaders condone Magnolia's behavior, then direct the transitional housing south.

Meanwhile, city leaders hemorrhage money into South Lake Union and spend their days at city hall daydreaming about the Chihuly Museum, new Trolley lines, and lots and lots of bike lanes ---while cutting police funding, dismantling the gang unit, and suspending hiring of new police officers. Priorities folks, it's all about priorities. You may want safer streets, but your mayor and city council want bright shiny objects, baubles, and trophys.

By the way; the spill-over effect of crime is going to increase. Your neighborhoods are becoming less safe. The city has been dumping huge sums of social services money into SE Seattle in the last decade. They're building the city's first-ever slum. The problems in SE Seattle are growing and can no longer be contained. YOUR neighborhood will be less safe in the future because Seattle simply cannot contain these problems in one zip code ---unless you build a moat around it.

Look at the push-back from Magnolia, for example. The city wants to put more transitional housing for families at the old Fort Lawton site, and Magnolia residents call out the lawyers to stop it. City leaders condone Magnolia's behavior, then direct the transitional housing south.

Magnolia didn't want ANY housing there, including for rich people. Hmm. Maybe your narrative will have to change now?

Maybe we should end policies that invite/welcome problems to our region.

Sorry, but how does the city "red-line poverty" into Rainier Beach? How do you get poor and stay poor--not going to school and graduating? having kids before you have any job prospects? You decide how to shape your life. You decide where to live. How is that the city's doing? No, this is not everyone's problem. This is the problem of people who choose to live like this. We worked hard for our "comfy, safer" neighborhoods; why should we open them to what you say is our "fair share" of the city's "social burden"? What on earth does that mean? "Transitional housing"? Gee, I wonder why anyone would object to plunking down formerly homeless, addicted or convicted criminal people in their "comfy, safer" neighborhoods? Because they have families and they worked hard to get into a safe place for them?

The problem is the priorities of city leaders ---and residents--- to take the easy way out, exempting themselves from responsibility to do what's right.

If that's code for "put the next housing project in Green Lake," the answer will be, "No."

"Not Fan", you make my point (above) perfectly. Thank you.

Only one city neighborhood is forced to accept the social burdens of an entire city --Southeast Seattle. Every other city neighborhood is exempted, and carefully protected by 60 years of unequitable city policy.

For shame.

You know, of course, that Ballard "accepts" plenty of homeless. They camp in their cars, and wander Main Street. In Magnolia, the homeless live near the railroad tracks in Interbay, and no one rousts them. Similar arrangements are common throughout the neighborhoods.

But that's not enough. Now you want the neighborhoods to welcome SE Seattle's gangbangers with open arms? How stupid do you think we are?

"Not Fan", you presume that 'low-income' equals 'gang-banger'. There are tens of thousands of low-income residents and not all are gang-bangers, or criminals. The majority of low-income residents are children. The housing required is for families. You are making assumptions that lean toward racism and classism. By continuing to isolate and ignore a growing population of less-privileged, you sow the seeds of a worse future for them and for you. This is a wake-up call. You ignore the next generation at your own peril.

Of course they're not all gang bangers and criminals. But crime is much more prevalent in the black community than elsewhere. The numbers show it, and your own arguments here accept it. But as soon as someone joins the conversation with you, but with a different viewpoint, you pull out the accusations and threats.

If you think that will work with me, it won't. And I don't think it works too well with the rest of Seattle either. Try some honesty for a change. The "social justice" types are always pleading for honesty, until they get it. You utterly refuse to even discuss the fact that most of that community's problems are self-imposed. No one is forcing black kids to ignore school, and no one's forcing black women to bear three-quarters of their children out of wedlock, usually without a father in sight.

"Not Fan", I'm not pulling out of the debate ---you are. You have drawn a line in the sand and will not accept ANY of the city's social burden in your neighborhood. Is that reasonable? The poverty rate in Rainier Beach is 25%. I presume the poverty rate in your neighborhood is in the single digits, say 4% or 8%? That's by design, not because you are a better, more honest citizen than those unfortunate folks living in Rainier Beach. You are merely lucky to be living among people of comparable socio-economic status. But yours is most likely not a gated community, and your sense of well-being is temporary. City policies have isolated and kept poverty in one place, festering and growing. Now, the side-effects of poverty are spilling over into your neighborhood. What will you do about it? What's your solution?

You can keep trying to make me feel guilty, but it won't work. In fact, the more you "social justice" types try it, the harder you'll set my feet in concrete. Guilt worked against Jim Crow, but it does not work against people who refuse to indulge self-destructive behavior.

City policies didn't make the people of SE poor. That happened through other means. You steadfastly refuse to even consider discussing the real issues, i.e., illegitimate births and the massive lack of interest in education among that population. Until you do, the rest of Seattle will (and should) turn its back.

You don't want to hear it. You claim to want an "honest" dialogue, but that's a lie. By the way, it's not just white people saying these things. Bill Cosby says the same stuff, and the "social justice" crowd calls him Uncle Tom. Well, fine. But if you think you're going to persuade the whole of Seattle to import SE's crap to their neighborhoods, better think again.

"Not fan", the real issues are poverty, a failing education system, bad parenting, poor city policies, drugs, unfair tax policies, the 'nanny state', rampant social services with too little oversight, institutionalized racism, and denial...among the long list of issues.

Right here, right now, Seattle has problems that are of our own making. Our crime could be less. We could have fewer gangs. We could have better graduation rates. We could have fairer housing policies. We could have less red-lining. Those are problems closer to home, which city leaders ---and Seattle voters--- could solve.

Don't give me the same old conservative BS about 'personal responsibility' and out-of-wedlock births, etc. That's not solutions, that's just monotonous and unhelpful blame. Face it, there's no solution to many of society's problems. This isn't China, we don't regulate births. You can look for solutions or you can bury your head. So far, your Ostrich approach is perhaps the worst response.

Seattle's leaders have set about to create two cities; one city which strives to be 'most-livable, and 'most-walkable', most 'bike-friendly', and 'most-green', and... you name it. The other city, the one nobody wants to talk about, is forced to accept all the problems, poverty, crime, the largest population of elderly, largest population of disabled, and the largest population minorities in the city. With such a large social burden, its no wonder SE Seattle struggles. But that leaves the other city free to enjoy their parks and coffee shops and pretend Seattle is the most-livable city.

Your solution? Blame those who are less than middle-class, and isolate them, all of them, no matter what makes them different. If they aren't white and middle-class, they get shoved to the margins. If that's not working for you, then I ask again, what is your solution? Isn't this the city you want...compartmentalized and segregated?

What is your solution to de-stress and re-balance SE Seattle to reduce the concentration of crime and make SE Seattle on-par with other neighborhoods? (Oh, genocide is not on the table for discussion.)

Your turn; let's hear your solution to the problem that is SE Seattle?

Don't give me the same old conservative BS about 'personal responsibility' and out-of-wedlock births, etc. That's not solutions, that's just monotonous and unhelpful blame.

There ya go again. As long as you are willing to deny the truth and draw caricatures of the people who tell it, you'll fail. I could detail the connections between illegitimacy and poverty, and failure to study in school and poverty. But there'd be no point, because you'd call it "conservative BS."

What is your solution to de-stress and re-balance SE Seattle to reduce the concentration of crime and make SE Seattle on-par with other neighborhoods?

I've told you what needs to be done, and you've rejected it. The fact that you rejected it will not make me tell you anything different. Your kind always asks for an "honest" answer. But, in reality, the very last thing you want is "honesty," because the honest truth is just too challenging for you.

Oh, genocide is not on the table for discussion.

You've just put it there. What we have now is self-inflicted genocide. A large percentage of the black males in every big city are either on probation, parole, or are incarcerated. When a black woman gets pregnant, there's a 75% chance that she's not married, and most of the time that there's no father cohabiting or otherwise available to contribute to that child's upkeep. That's the end game, and we see way too much of it.

If people refuse to use the advantages they are given, this is what happens to them. It's sad, but it ain't my fault. If you think you're going to guilt-trip your way further into my wallet, better think again. That game is over.

"forced to accept all the problems, poverty, crime, the largest population of elderly, largest population of disabled, and the largest population minorities in the city"? No--those problems began there. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere, other than the real estate market. Your notion that we all share the social burden created in South Seattle is nonsense.

...

"Not Fan", you keep mentioning the word "guilt". If you're feeling guilty, it's not my fault. Before you blame me, go look in the mirror.

You say: "If you think you're going to guilt-trip your way further into my wallet, better think again." Actually, I'm trying to save you money. I encourage you to vote against the next Housing Levy. The Housing Levy keeps building awful housing, concentrated in the SE Seattle. Of course, cutting off money to bloated housing providers isn't the entire solution, but it will remove funding from the poverty pimps in SE Seattle that feed on the less fortunate, encouraging more concentration of poverty to perpetuate their own paychecks.

Aside from your wallet, how about volunteering to teach a struggling grade school kid better reading skills? Or, join Big Brothers and mentor a youth. Or, sit on a Board of a community group in SE Seattle?

How about attending a Board meeting of the Seattle Housing Authority, and demand they disperse subsidized housing citywide? Studies show low-income people 'model' themselves on the behavior around them. If you want less crime, and more responsible citizens, then invite one to move next door. It will make BOTH of your lives better.

Again, what are your solutions, today, for the real world? Or, will you just continue to whine and point fingers?

Indeed I will vote against the next housing levy. I'll also be voting against the schools levy. No way will I demand that low income housing be dispersed. I don't want SE's people or problems in my neighbhorhood. I've given you the approaches on what to do, and you have rejected them. Ever wonder why 40% of the inmates are black when 4% of the population is?

Too many illegitimate kids, and too little attention paid to school. (And don't even think of telling me that I'm a hypocrite for stressing education while planning to vote against the schools levy. I'll be voting against waste, not against education.) The cause of the various problems is much less complicated than you "social justice" types think. The "real world" solution is to tell these kids to look around and see what happens to people who f*** around.

You seem to think that I'm going to tell you something different the fifth or sixth time around. You seem to think that threats of violence will scare me, or that I'll crave your approval so much that I'll tell you what you want to hear. It's a free country. Think what you want. But my answers are not going to change.

Oh, and sitting on the board of a housing group in SE Seattle? Yeah, I'm sure I'll be real, real welcome, especially when I tell them to kick out the drug dealers and anyone who allows them to stay there, and to enforce the school truancy laws, and to have a curfew in the projects. Remember "midnight basketball?" The problem there wasn't the program. It actually made sense, given the reality that most of the "parents" in those projects have no idea what their "children" are doing. White people refused to believe it; those who did believe it were "racists" for believing it.

How stupid do you think I am? Go to SE and offer my skills and common sense? You've got to be joking.

You've done an excellent job of presenting your case, I'm hoping many Crosscut readers will take note. Yours is a position which will undoubtedly cause crime to continue to be incubated in SE Seattle, as many would prefer. Unfortunately, crime continues to grow and can no longer be contained in SE Seattle. Soon, the mentally ill, and gang-bangers, and other criminals will begin migrating north, to your neighborhoods to perpetrate increasingly violent crimes there. A lot of crime is based on opportunity. Here, we have too many criminals already. On the other hand, up north you have nicer homes and cars. It's really more of supply & demand issue at this point.

Your response to honesty is threats. Well, if that's the conversation you want to have, we can have it. You won't like it much either.

You ignore the fact that most of the violent crime is gangbangers killing each other. For so long as that is true, no one is going to care much, nor will caring make much of a difference. No, we don't don't think that the wave of criminals is rolling up to our neighborhoods any worse than before. Nor do we think that volunteering to house in our nirghborhood some of the folks who cause it makes any sense.

"Not Fan", you keep accusing me of making threats. If I have conveyed any threat, or threatening tone, you have my apology. That was not my intention.

We're here, having this conversation because of crime problems in Seattle. This is a wake-up call for many Seattle residents. As I stated in an earlier post, Seattle's crime problems are not going away, in fact crime is getting worse.

Seattle's crime problems are the result of poor decisions by the mayor and city council, supported by Seattle residents. If you don't like the outcome, then break the pattern, and change the future.

The crime that Seattle is experiencing in 2012, has been increasing for years in SE Seattle. It's now beginning to spill-over into other neighborhoods. That's not a threat, that's a fact. You can expect more crime in your neighborhood in the future.

If you can't guilt-trip us into coughing up more money, then you bring out the threat of gang-bangers all over town. And that will convince us to welcome housing projects? Are you flat-out crazy? How on earth could you possibly imagine that Ballard, or North Seattle, or Queen Anne, or Capitol Hill, or Montlake, or Magnolia is going to open its arms to you? What drugs are you on?

The long-term approach to reducing crime is to reduce the rate of out-of-wedlock births, which are a one-way ticket to poverty in the overwhelming majority of cases, and to pound it into kids that the best way out of poverty is to put their asses in the seats and their nose in the books. It is simple, boring, effective, and difficult, which is probably why you are against it.

The short-term approach is to go after the gangs with police. Focus on the 20% of the crooks who commit 80% of the crimes, and lock them away until they're in their 40s. It's depressing to see so many black men going to prison, but "if you do the crime, you will do the time."

I sure do know better than to step into one of these tiresome finales. This one so tiresome that only speed reading works. Nonetheless, the topic is too important to let it drain away in retorts springing from misunderstandings as to when something is territorial and when it is not.

What makes the author's "culture of violence" territorial is an ongoing collision between the limited resources people have for a choice of housing and the increased interest and focus on city living. One consequence is pioneering is the true sense of that word—the territory is already inhabited and its inhabitants are not going quietly—we don't seem to learn much.

But not only do the needs so created now extend far south beyond Seattle's border, the truth of the matter is that cultures of any type are less and less territorial based. Social mobility has contributed at times, but the main driver is physical mobility, taking incivility to where we all live at any unknowable moment. Terrorists have taken note, but not enough others.

The reason for the "increased interest and focus on city living" is that, after the lax policies of the 1970s, the public put pressure on their political leaders, and things tightened up a lot in the '80s and '90s.

Prolific criminals were caught and jailed, and crime rates declined. Seattle's recent problems are a blip, and will be taken care of. The prison space is there, and it will be filled.

"Not Fan"said "The prison space is there, and it will be filled." Wow, that's a really sad statement. But, I agree with you. Prison appears to be the preferred solution of our elected leaders, and Seattle's residents.

Very sad. Perhaps we should invest in our people, especially when they are young and vulnerable? Then, we wouldn't have to spend millions and millions of dollars to incarcerate them? Wouldn't investing in education and job training be a better us of public tax dollars? Or, do you just prefer to waste tax dollars by building more prisons?

Wow, that's a really sad statement. But, I agree with you. Prison appears to be the preferred solution of our elected leaders, and Seattle's residents.

Dry your crocodile tears, bunky. We the taxpayers don't like prisons. They're expensive. If I were emperor they'd be replaced with gallows, but I realize that won't happen. We'd rather have people never get to that state of being, but if they've got nothing resembling "parents," and ignore the promise of education, then prison it'll be.

Harsh, eh? But real, and honest. Not that you want honesty. It scares the hell out of you. It makes you want to threaten violence if I don't feel appropriately guilty and join the NPR pledge drive. Guess what? Your latest attempt to tug at my heartstrings failed, just like all the rest. Keep trying!

Wouldn't investing in education and job training be a better us of public tax dollars?

We've "invested" megabucks in education already, but we have generation after generation that won't study. Of course, you hate age-old truth, so I guess I shouldn't bother saying that you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. Most of problems with black people in this city and this country come from within.

Until you will face them honestly, you will get nowhere. Money will not solve it. Therefore, we fall back on the lowest common denominator: separation. Not via Jim Crow, but via the judicial system. It stinks. But the "social justice" crowd has been lying to this group of people for many years, and you keep lying because it's easier than confronting the truth.

The galvanization of the citizenry is the solution and a problem.

NotFan, I think it's going to take the "social justice" crowd many more years, generations maybe, to make things right for a group of people who were bought and sold, beat, used for breeding, and lynched. Just a guess.

Well Karen, look at the Jews. They lost one-third of their population two generations ago. They've come back pretty strong. Same for the Vietnamese, who were hit pretty bad, and the Chinese, who suffered greatly under Mao.

In the U.S., there are now 10 times as many blacks as there were on the day slavery ended. How long does every screw up get to be blamed on slavery, anyway? The last vestiges of Jim Crow ended almost 50 years ago, and were replaced with affirmative action.

At some point, we get to ask what the return on the investment has been. At the very least, we get to say, "Um, no thanks to that public housing project you want to put into my neighborhood, with the implied threat of violence if we don't take it."

NotFan, a couple of questions for you. First, taking your 75% of African American children are born out of wedlock point (and I'd love to see some data backing that up BTW), who cares? Is there any data to show that a child raised without a mother or father is inherintly worse than anyone else? It seems to me that the child is going to be more affected by the socio-economic conditios, cutural traditions, etc. that are around them than by the presence or absence of a parent. If I'm wrong though then again by all means, show me the data to prove it.

Moving past that though, you keep talking about "getting" the 20% of people committing 80% of crimes... okay, great. How? Realizing that we're still burdened by that pesky US Constitution and federal and state laws, what exactly are police officers to do. You talk about "rough justice" and while that probably looks good in The Shield I'm not really sure what it means in real life. Does it mean searches without warrents, beatings, or perhaps as you suggested going in with "guns blazing". Care to tell me how cops going into a house guns blazing doesn't violate most tenats of the state and federal constitutions and how doing so doesn't reduce police officers to murderers?

Moving on from that though, I'll say I agree (as I'm sure most people here do) that there's a lack of parental involvement/encouragement of education in some households and communities. However I'm sure you'll also agree that despite being in the same school system there is a vastly different quality of education offered at a school in Wedgewood vs. a school in a poorer area. That difference, while certainly not an excuse for the individuals, is something that should be corrected so as to ensure that everyone has a relatively level playing field, even if they choose not to take advantage of it, wouldn't you say?

I'll stop there, but I look forward to hearing your response on this.

You'd "love to see some data," you say. The hell you do. The data are the very last thing you want to see, and I'm going to prove it by showing you the data. Why? Because I know you'll find some way to dismiss it.

Let's start with this: 72.8% of births to non-Hispanic blacks are unwed. Rounds to three-quarters.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table15

Then you construct a straw man argument by asking for "data to show that a child raised without a mother or father is inherintly worse than anyone else." I never made the argument, so maybe it's you who should prove your own argument.

But what I did say was that illegitimacy was linked to poverty. This is absolutely true. You might be interested in the data that show that poverty in single-mother households is four to five times that in households with two parents. Of course, you'll find some way to spin that, too.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/pov/new02_100_01.htm

The poverty rate in black married households is 10.9%. In black single-mother households, it's 41%. Unfortunately, black single-mother households are 45% of all black households. Another 8% of black households are single-father, where the poverty rate is 27%, nearly four times the overall married rate and almost three times the black married rate. Together, single parent households are the majority among blacks.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/pov/new02_100_06.htm

Among whites, the poverty rate in married households is 7.1%. In white single-mother households, it's 31%. In white single-father households, it's 15%. But single-mother households are 4.5% of the white total, and single-father households are 0.9%, making of single parent white households 5.4% of the total.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/pov/new02_100_03.htm

Fact is, you aren't even remotely interested in an honest dialogue, meaning one based on facts and data. The facts are just too challenging for you. The truth? You can't handle the truth, which is that unwed child bearing is a ticket to poverty, and that blacks have 10 times the rate of single-parent households than whites do. Spin it, baby!

----------

Now, for the rest of the idiocy that you offered here.

I'll say I agree (as I'm sure most people here do) that there's a lack of parental involvement/encouragement of education in some households and communities. However I'm sure you'll also agree that despite being in the same school system there is a vastly different quality of education offered at a school in Wedgewood vs. a school in a poorer area.

Black kids and parents (such as they are) massively turn their backs on any kind of school at all. It's tragic. Ask any teacher. I have, because I have them in my family. They'll tell you that school discipline and parental involvement are much more important than anything else.

Moving past that though, you keep talking about "getting" the 20% of people committing 80% of crimes... okay, great. How? Realizing that we're still burdened by that pesky US Constitution and federal and state laws, what exactly are police officers to do. You talk about "rough justice" and while that probably looks good in The Shield I'm not really sure what it means in real life. Does it mean searches without warrents, beatings, or perhaps as you suggested going in with "guns blazing". Care to tell me how cops going into a house guns blazing doesn't violate most tenats of the state and federal constitutions and how doing so doesn't reduce police officers to murderers?

You are a typical out-of-touch liberal. You live in an all-or-nothing world, and shy away from anything having to do with reality. There are shades of gray everywhere. It's not about "reducing police officers to murderers."

Have you even read that absurd Dept. of Justice report? Tell me, have you done so? I bet not. It's a joke. If the Seattle police are handcuffed the way the feds want them to be, the crime rate in SE will explode. Which will ultimately lead to Home Depot (do-it-yourself) justice. Which will be much messier.

Haven't your stupid policies done enough damage?

The social justice crowd can't stand to think of minorities (especially blacks)as anything but victims. This has become so deeply ingrained that even common methods of enforcement--more police on the street, say--has become a sign of "victimizing the victim."

To progressives, it's always someone else's fault. Meanwhile the black Americans who once had a proud hertiage of resilience and grit are increasingly relegated to the victim's pile, a ready source of patronage for the local politicians and progressives who feed off them.

That's one of the things that kills me about all this. The "progressives" think they're the friends of minorities, when in fact they are their worst enemies.

NotFan,

I'll respond by thanking you for the data, I had wondered if you would provide it. I'm glad to see that you are at least correct with the 75%-ish number. However, I would caution against using the data too much to support the point you are trying to make. Phrased differently, the data you presented does not prove the argument that "illegitimacy [is] linked to poverty". The reason I say that is this, there are two co-existing points of data existing in the same realm, but they do not (at least by the information provided) have a direct cause-and-effect with each other. For example, I could say that areas with fewer potted plants have more poverty (and given the price of potted plants could be correct). Yet we can both agree that the solution to poverty is not to ship truckloads of potted plants to impoverished areas. On a less joking note, the relationship between one-parent homes and poverty could just as easily be explained by the fact that stagnant wages and the decline of the middle class have made it much much harder to support even one child with only one parent in the home.

The problem I see with your logic is that you seem to be making the case that an entire community would be better off were there only two-parent homes, and further (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the government should play little role in helping those areas until the communities form more two-parent homes. While I'd love to see all parents responsible for their children, quite frankly that is an area of personal choice and individual responsibility that the government can play little role in. The role the government can play, however, is to ensure that even if only one parent is present all children have equal access and opportunities to programs, and all adults have equal access and opportunities to jobs, higher education, and additional opportunities to better themselves.

Moving onto the comments about the police I believe you missed my point and the question I was asking. The question was directly what should the police department be doing differently? You talked about rough justice, and while I appreciate your unncessary personal attack about me being an "out-of-touch liberal" it didn't really answer what that would look like. If you could please elaborate on what the rough justice you want to see dispensed would look like, and how it would help the situation that would be appreciated.

Finally, I would caution you on making generalizations about anyone, but especially children, on the basis of race, gender, sexual identity, socio-economic status, etc. Not because it's illegal, becuase you are of course free to say whatever you want, but because generalizing and stereotyping people really serves no practical or useful purpose. It certainly can serve as a self-defense mechanism we use to isolate ourselves from certain problems, but it really isn't actually useful in problem solving. The reason for this is pretty simple, if African American children "massively turn their backs on any kind of school" then logic would dictate we should do nothing to help. Of course we can (I hope) both agree that the solution to a problem, especially one as fundamental as education, is not simply to decry it as unsolvable. Yet by creating and perpetuating such stereotypes you set yourself up to do largely that. Ancedotal evidence may help reaffirm such beliefs, but they really don't prove any type of argument that you're trying to make. As always though, interesting and relatively non-biased (ie no Fox News, no MSNBC) information is always welcome.

Take care, I look forward to reading your response.

I would caution against using the data too much to support the point you are trying to make.

Just as I predicted, you run away from the facts rather than face them. All the family and poverty data, and the connections between them, have been around for decades. Moynihan tried to talk about it 40 years ago, and was denounced as a racist for telling the truth. Nothing has changed since then.

The reason I say that is this, there are two co-existing points of data existing in the same realm, but they do not (at least by the information provided) have a direct cause-and-effect with each other.

I don't need a lesson in statistics, including that correlation isn't causality. Statistics cannot prove causality, but only suggest it. You asked for data. I gave it to you, and now you dance away from the obvious.

On a less joking note, the relationship between one-parent homes and poverty could just as easily be explained by the fact that stagnant wages and the decline of the middle class have made it much much harder to support even one child with only one parent in the home.

Oh please. You don't even believe that. But just in case you have a sudden integrity attack, this link will show you that the ratio of poverty in single-parent families to poverty in the general population hasn't changed since the early 1970s, when the American middle class peaked.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

Not that the facts mean anything. You'll just find another way to spin it, baby!

While I'd love to see all parents responsible for their children, quite frankly that is an area of personal choice and individual responsibility that the government can play little role in. The role the government can play, however, is to ensure that even if only one parent is present all children have equal access and opportunities to programs

There are public schools in SE. I'll accept for the purpose of argument that they're not as good as the schools in Laurelhurst. But you skipped right past the truth on that issue, which is that the typical criteria of what constitutes a "good school" are virtually irrelevant when you have "parents" who don't care about education, and pass those attitudes along to their kids.

Or, to put it differently, if the kids in SE can't graduate from schools there, do you actually think they'd graduate in Laurelhurst? I don't. I've listened to enough from my teacher relatives, a couple of whom teach in predominantly black big-city systems in the East, on that set of issues.

Of course, you don't like data because they're inconvenient, so I doubt you'd ever listen to the people who actually do the teaching, much less a second-hand source on that. Your mind is made up, and you don't want to be confused by reality.

I would caution you on making generalizations about anyone, but especially children, on the basis of race, gender, sexual identity, socio-economic status, etc. Not because it's illegal, becuase you are of course free to say whatever you want, but because generalizing and stereotyping people really serves no practical or useful purpose.

What utter "progressive" crap! Your kind just looooooves to generalize and stereotype. You do it all the time, not just about the "elites" outside of SE but about the po' folk you pretend to speak for. What you actually object to is the truth.

The reason for this is pretty simple, if African American children "massively turn their backs on any kind of school" then logic would dictate we should do nothing to help.

Oh, there are all kinds of things we could do to help. We could enforce the truancy laws. We could impose real consequences for misbehavior. We could remove children from homes. We could sterilize mothers who keep cranking out children they can't support, or bribe 'em with $5,000 to tie the tubes if need be. We could send the police into SE and root out the drug dealers, and then put them in prison until they're in their 40s.

Do you even realize that more than one-third of prisoners are illiterate, and that most of them are black? Question: What do you call someone who can't read in present-day America? Answer: Someone's slave forever. Don't sit there and talk about equality with Laurelhurst when you have a huge proportion of kids whose "parents" are so absent that they didn't even make sure that their offspring learned how to read. Have you ever been to one of these housing projects at 3 a.m.? I dare you to get a real education.

The schools in SE might not be the greatest, but they can teach a kid how to read. But they cannot force a kid to learn how to read. At some point, the "parent" and the "community" have to come into play. On that front, there is massive failure. We can pour all kinds of money into the place, but unless the basics get changed, it'll be a joke. It's clear that you "social justice" types have no interest in true change; hell, you won't even admit that there are massive problems, for fear that people might just draw some "incorrect" (i.e., inconvenient and embarrassing) conclusions.

And if you disperse these people around the city, all it'll do is degrade the neighborhoods they go to. So don't lecture us about our duty to welcome that sort of dysfunction with open arms. We're not going to do it, period. If you want to call us names, go right ahead. And if you want to make violent threats, I have two words in response: second amendment. Be careful what you wish for, because Home Depot (do-it-yourself) justice is going to be infinitely rougher than anything the police deliver.

If you could please elaborate on what the rough justice you want to see dispensed would look like

I'm not a cop, so I can't say specifically. You, on the other hand, offer nothing other than more of the same. Fine. Keep doing it. Just know that if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten. And you'd better understand that the public isn't going to go for higher taxes, nor will we permit the dispersion of low-income housing into our neighborhoods.

And if, like other posters here, you think I'll feel guilty about that, or be afraid of any threats of violence, think again. The "quiet" neighborhoods of this city are armed to the teeth. You'd be shocked if you knew just who owns a gun in Seattle, and how many, and where they live.

@ NotFan

Nicely done.

@ all others.

An interesting read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/6872/

Map crime and low-income housing in Seattle. Heck, I might make
an app for kicks.

I lived in Washington, D.C. during the administration of Marion "The Bitch Set Me Up" Barry. At the beginning of each year, the Washington Post would publish a map of the prior year's murders. It always made for, ah, interesting reading.

NotFan, as always an interesting discussion, and now let me respond.

First, stop putting words in my mouth. As much as it might help your point if I threatened you, implied you should feel guilty, or even said that I don't care about the facts the reality is that I have never said any of those things. Carrying on and on about how I don't care about the information you have posted is quite plainly wrong, and I'm sure you don't want to be wrong on such a basic issue.

Now lets see, where to start. First, although you said you don't need a lesson in statistics you didn't really offer anything else to back up your point that "illegitimacy is linked to poverty". Indeed, I noticed that while you responded to most of the issues I raised on this point, you somehow forgot to respond to the fact that poverty is probably also found in households with less potted plants. As absurd as the scenario is, doesn't it have just as much factual sense as the point you are making? Calm down before responding and think for a moment, your claim is that X (in your case the absence of two-parent homes) leads to Y (poverty), with the linking factor being that households in poverty, especially in the African American community, tend to be single-parent households. Now I posit to you that simply replacing X with the absence of potted plants, and keeping the rest of the logical equation the same, is the TRUE cause of poverty, and the reason behind my claim is the exact same as the reason behind yours. How can this be true?

Moving onto education, you continue to offer anecdotal evidence to support a broader point, and fail to incorporate more fact-based evidence to support your assertion. I too have a number of family members and friends who are teachers in districts with various different socio-economic statuses. Yet while they will discuss that there needs to be more involvement with parents, they'll also say things about how hard it is to learn with huge student:teacher ratios, how hard it is to learn in a school that's crumbling or moldy, how hard it is to learn without adequate and updated textbooks, library materials, and yes even technology (because much as reading is important so is being computer literate). What's more, these problems are actually things we can work to solve. We could, for example, decide that all schools must be toxic-mold free. We could say that all schools should meet a certain standard of structural integrity, or that all textbooks must be up-to-date within X number of years, or that the average student:teacher ratio in a school can't be greater than X. Whats more, these actions are fully measurable, easily completable, and things that will produce tangible results.

Of course the other thing they are is constitutional, unlike some of your more... interesting idea. Paying mothers to tie their tubes is probably legal, as would enforcement of truancy laws. Of course I'm sure you realize you would actually have to pay to have those things done, so if you want to tell me how you'll get that money I'm all ears. Beyond that, taking children away without cause is illegal, sterilizing mothers is illegal, and my guess is that some of the things you'd like the police to be able to do (go in "guns blazing" for example) are also illegal and unconstitutional. Perhaps try to stick within the realm not of ordinary, because we do need extraordinary ideas, but simply constitutional and legal.

Finally on police, I'd love to send them in to get all of the drug dealers, lets do it. Of course I believe that delves back to the point of the article, there aren't enough police to do that. Remember that it takes time, a lot of hard work, and yes a lot of money to figure who all of those people are, collect enough evidence for a solid case, then to prosecute those individuals, and finally to imprison those people. Are you willing to pay more to have more police on the streets, more prosecutors in courts, and more jail space? I ask because apparently you're not willing to pay higher taxes, and those things do actually cost money (silly liberal big-government ideas of a strong police force, I know).

Finally, I really don't care who owns a weapon as long as it's legal. You and I probably have different views of the 2nd amendment, but I recognize its existence and have no problem with individual gun ownership (although I think you may have the stores mixed up, as the last time I checked Home Depot doesn't sell firearms). And yes, if someone breaks into your house you have every right to defend yourself. However, you lose that right if it's trying to stop low-income housing from moving next door. But of course we both know this, so perhaps we can shorten both of our comments in the next round by taking out this last little bit about people being armed to the teeth, apparently with weapons purchased from a home-improvement store.

I'll wait for your response

As much as it might help your point if I threatened you, implied you should feel guilty

Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, I didn't accuse you of doing either one of those things. You need to read more carefully.

or even said that I don't care about the facts

I didn't accuse of declaring that you don't care about the facts. I simply accused you of not caring. I stand by that accusation. I further accuse you, right now, of sophistry.

they'll also say things about how hard it is to learn with huge student:teacher ratios, how hard it is to learn in a school that's crumbling or moldy, how hard it is to learn without adequate and updated textbooks, library materials, and yes even technology (because much as reading is important so is being computer literate)

I never had fewer than 35 kids in my classes before the seventh grade. The books were ancient, and no one had ever heard of a computer. My junior high school had the latest technology for the time, but the quality of education was far lower than in my crowded, outdated elementary school.

The big difference: discipline. My Catholic grade school didn't put up with misbehavior like the public school did. It made all the difference. Not that you'll care. If you'll ask for statistics and then blithely ignore them (just as I had predicted), you aren't going to listen to what I just told you.

Moving onto education, you continue to offer anecdotal evidence to support a broader point, and fail to incorporate more fact-based evidence to support your assertion.

Oh, that's good. Really good. You ask for stats. I give them to you, and then you trot out some patronizing b.s. about how we can't rely on statistics. Then I pass along the experiences of myself or others, and you reject them as mere anecdotes. You don't want facts, or logic, or experience. You have constructed a high brick wall against any evidence that doesn't support your tired, failed "progressive" viewpoint.

Face it, you're just like every other phony, self-righteous "progressive" -- not serious. You and your kind merely pretend to be interested in a conversation. But the longer it goes on, the more it becomes clear that, for you, it's mere sparring in service of your obtuse denial. Fine. I can't force your eyes open. But I can, along with this state's electorate, keep my wallet closed. And you're not going to like it one bit.

It reminds me of an old joke about an argument between the parts of the body over which one should run the show. The brain argued that it was the smartest, so it should rule. The hands said the body would be nowhere without either fists or opposable thumbs. The legs preached the virtues of running. The eyes asked where the body would be if it couldn't see?

Amid the clamor, the lowly a-hole tried to speak up, and was immediately laughed at by all. No one likes to be ridiculed, not even a-holes. He sulked and sulked. He was so insulted that he tightened up shut. Soon, the eyes went dim, the arms and legs became weak, and the brain couldn't think. That's how the a-holes came to rule the world.

It's a fun joke, or at least I think so, but it leaves something out. See, the only thing more powerful than the a-holes is the wallet. Even a-holes need money, because without money the body can't eat. And if the body can't eat, who cares what the a-holes do? This is how we, the people, deal with our "progressive" a-holes. We cut off your money.

At that point, bereft of money and moaning at the indignity of it all, you'll have to get creative. You will need to call on the arms, the legs, the eyes, and the brain to get together, make do with what they have, and figure out how to proceed. So, "progressives," whether you like it or not, we will shut our wallets on you, and have the last laugh. Just wait. Good luck with that $1 billion school levy next year.

Paying mothers to tie their tubes is probably legal, as would enforcement of truancy laws. Of course I'm sure you realize you would actually have to pay to have those things done, so if you want to tell me how you'll get that money I'm all ears.

The government will never pay for sterilizations, even though they'd be phenomenally cost effective. Could you imagine the "progressive" uproar about "genocide?" Your crew would much prefer that this issue be handled more discreetly, in the abortion clinics. Oh, and I'm 100% in favor of legal abortion, but I also think it's a poor third place to birth control and sterilization.

As for truancy laws, you round 'em up and stick 'em in rooms where they're forced to listen to Arabic music. If they talk, they go to jail for the day, where their work is to move rock piles from one corner to another. There are all kinds of ways to skin the cat, if you want to. But you don't care about the basics. Once you are deprived of money, you will change your tune.

Are you willing to pay more to have more police on the streets, more prosecutors in courts, and more jail space? I ask because apparently you're not willing to pay higher taxes, and those things do actually cost money

We bring back prison farms and highway crews. California Hwy. 1 was built by prisoners, so why can't Seattle streets be repaired by them? Until I see some signs that any of the "progressives" who dream of nothing other than sticking their hands in my wallet get creative, I'm voting with Eyeman on everything.

Drives you crazy? Good. By the way, I'm not even a Republican. Maybe that will tell you why Eyeman's initiatives tend to do pretty well. Not that you'll ever listen. The only way to get through to you "progressives" is to keep beating you at the polls with a two-by-four until, eventually, you're so dazed that you'll at least quiet down for a while because you're tired of being hit.

I think you may have the stores mixed up, as the last time I checked Home Depot doesn't sell firearms

Wow, okay, I guess some "progressives" don't understand what a "figure of speech" is. Looking out the window that day in English Composition class, were you?

So I need to explain, in the manner of my teacher in that overcrowded sixth-grade class where no one learned anything because the Catholic diocese didn't raise $1 billion to repair their buildings and train more nuns. I called it "Home Depot (do-it-yourself) justice" not because Home Depot sells guns, but because shooting the burglar yourself is "do-it-yourself justice," and Home Depot stands for "do-it-yourself." Home Depot pretty much invented the category, at least when it comes to the big-box retail world.

But I guess it flew right over your poor head. I'll remember to be more literal from now on. I'd hate to pitch anything too high for you.

NotFan,

I believe you need to learn to take a joke. Of course I got your reference to Home Depot, I just thought I would illicit a smile and bring some civility back into political discourse with a mild joke.

Moving to education from there for a moment, you've yet to actually provide any statistical information regarding education, only on families with one-parent homes. I welcome you to provide similar organization backing up your educational assertions, but am still waiting for that information. What I find interesting though is that it was in fact you who failed to refute my observation about your data and the conclusions you've drawn. Namely, you've yet to tell me how the data you presented about one-parent homes leading to poverty is any more or less compelling than my scenario of less potted plants leading to poverty...

Now I'm quite glad that your education was good in grade school, I really am. Of course I wonder how accurate any of us are at judging the quality of our 3rd grade education (after all, at that point outdated textbooks aren't a huge issue since you're not getting into the actual structure of an atom or the socio-political-economic reasons behind World War I). What I will say though, is that you may have felt the quality of education was lower in 7th grade, but at the same time you had access to computers, updated textbooks, etc. Perhaps the problem in that case was your teacher, perhaps its the middle school students are harder to handle, perhaps the education was actually better than you remember. If we're going off of persoanl experience though I can say that my grade-school education was far worse than either my middle or high school education, a factor I can attribute to additional training and a better quality of teachers later on coupled with signifigantly more updated books, technology, etc. What is clear though, unless I'm mistaken, is that neither of us have any experience going to a school infected with mold, with hundreds of students over capacity, that was falling down. Perhaps we can ask teachers and students in those areas what they think.

For truancy and police I'll ask the same question I did before, where are we getting the money? You want someone to round up truant children, fine, who does it and how are they paid? You want criminals to repair roads, fine. We do, of course, need adequate supervision of those individuals by the police, which will mean either less police on the streets or more money for more police. This of course assumes that methods and technologies used to repair streets are things that prisoners can do without such extensive training as to make the entire idea futile. After all, roads used to be built with huge crews and are now built with smaller crews and huge machines.

My point boils down to this, there is the belief among many conservatives (choose your label as you will) that the problems with this country have a lot to do with the lack of personal responsiblity, and you know what, I'll agree, that is a problem. However where I take issue with that logic is when you say that the lack of personal responsibility absolves the government in general and us as undividuals from making strides to better the lives of people. I further take issue with the fact that you seem to alternate between "progressives are elitist" and "my neighborhood is too good for 'the poor people'". You do, I'm sure, understand that there are low-income families in pretty much every neighborhood in Seattle, and by refusing to accept that and allocate resources appropriatly you do little than cram low-income families together in ghettos and then act shocked when poverty begets more poverty. Do you ever wonder what would happen if a concious effort was made to mix poverty and wealth in the same neighborhoods? Would it be the end of the world, or might it provide an opportunity for individual to help individuals (cutting out that pesky governemtn you seem to hate so much) and begin to restore some of that personal responsiblity that we can agree everyone needs?

Oh, and as a sidenote, wouldn't you agree that its harder for parents (either single or double-parent households) to be involved with their children's education if they're working 80+ hours a week at multiple minimum-wage jobs to try and support their families? Remember that reasons for lack of involvement range from bad parenting to trying your damndest as a parente but understanding that needing to provide food and shelter is a pretty basic need. I mean, it's hard to help your kid with homework if you're at work at 8am and not home again until 9:30 or 10 at night.

Of course I got your reference to Home Depot, I just thought I would illicit a smile and bring some civility back into political discourse with a mild joke.

Hey, I joked right back. You know, about staring out the window in that sixth-grade class. Thicken your skin, I say.

Moving to education from there for a moment, you've yet to actually provide any statistical information regarding education, only on families with one-parent homes.

You asked for statistics about one-parent households and poverty. When I provided them, your response was a pretentious, patronizing lecture against the use of statistics. But now you want more statistics? Why, so you can ignore those, too? What's the point in giving you data? You're a "progressive," and you don't believe in data or experience or logic.

You know what's funny? The "progressives" attack the wingnuts for rejecting science when it comes to climate change. Then you people turn right around and apply your faith-based dogma to poverty, race, and education. You kind is no less stubbornly ignorant as Sarah Palin and her friends. You are the flip sides of the same coin.

What is clear though, unless I'm mistaken, is that neither of us have any experience going to a school infected with mold, with hundreds of students over capacity, that was falling down. Perhaps we can ask teachers and students in those areas what they think.

I have teachers in my family, and have done that. But their experiences conflict with your "progressive" dogma, so you dismiss that too.

My point boils down to this, there is the belief among many conservatives (choose your label as you will) that the problems with this country have a lot to do with the lack of personal responsiblity, and you know what, I'll agree, that is a problem.

I call b.s. on your "agreement." Or maybe you just want us, the taxpayers, to subsidize personal irresponsibility. Well guess what? The wallet's empty, so the "progressive" a-holes aren't going to get any more money. I take it you didn't like that joke too much either. Where's your sense of humor?

You do, I'm sure, understand that there are low-income families in pretty much every neighborhood in Seattle, and by refusing to accept that and allocate resources appropriatly you do little than cram low-income families together in ghettos and then act shocked when poverty begets more poverty.

Who says I'm shocked? None of it surprises me. For the past 50 years, the "progressives" have been paying children to crank out children, and have refused to enforce basic standards. You reap what you sow.

Oh, and as a sidenote, wouldn't you agree that its harder for parents (either single or double-parent households) to be involved with their children's education if they're working 80+ hours a week at multiple minimum-wage jobs to try and support their families?

Maybe the gal should've thought about that before getting pregnant. Or once pregnant, maybe she should have terminated it. Maybe she should have given it up for adoption. Maybe she should have gotten sterilized, or maybe she should've gone to Planned Parenthood for free birth control.

NotFan,

I really do belive there is a moral failing among our citizens, and that has a role to play in a number of problems facing the US. Please don't tell me what I do and do not believe. Where we differ on this is that I feel (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you think this is the main/only cause of poverty, lack of education etc. , whereas I see it as an unfortunate problem but by no means a primary concern.

Of course there will always be people who abuse government programs, just as there will always be people who, despite our best intentions, are left in the cold rather than receiving help. That doesn't mean we stop trying, it means we learn from our mistakes and get better.

For education, yes, you did present statistics on one vs. two parent households and poverty. However, poverty has nothing to do with education, save for the money available to fund schools. When I'm asking for facts I'm asking for something that backs up your assertion that additional funding is not the answer. My assertion is that additional funding is required to allow schools to hire back some of the teachers who have been fired, ensure textbooks are up-to-date, ensure music/art/theater/etc. programs aren't cut/are restored, ensure AP/IB programs are widely available... and the list goes on. Simply repeating the viewpoint of a few family members/teachers does not form any time of conclusive evidence. I am curious though, these family members of yours, was their point that all evils of the school system can be laid on the parents, or did they perhaps mention that their textbooks were out-of-date, their computers antiquated, their library lacking in modern reading materials, their arts and music programs gutted, and their class sizes rising? I ask becuase the family and friends of mine who teach mention both of those things and then a whole laundry-list more, recognizing that the problems facing education have a number of causes and manifest themselves in hundreds of shades of gray, rather than just in black-and-white.

What's more, stop saying that I'm not interested in factual evidence, I'm in fact quite interested to see some. However, I am perfectly willing to challenge sets of facts (as dilligent individuals should) to ensure they are applicable and back up the assertions made by the individual presenting them. The fact that your facts don't back up those points you are making is no fault of mine, and my challenging you on that does not constitute a "patronizing lecture" but rather an informed dissent, I'm sure you can understand the difference.

I will say I think we agree that birth control should be free and readily available to those who want it. However sadly that is not the case in our current society. Nor does it really matter in our current discussion of what to do to help low-income families today. Saying that parents should have been more careful cannot be seen as an acceptable response to childhood hunger, crumbling schools, or an inability to create good jobs. You are correct though, you do reap what you sow, and I'm guessing that what we'll reap with the budget cuts (which I think you support) over the last few years will mainifest itself in plenty of ugly ways in the future.

With that said, I've really no idea what you're talking about with the "paying children to crank our children" comment, but if you'd care to elaborate I'm always interested to listen. I'll also just assume that you understand my points were valid regarding police funding and the crackdown on crime and truancy, but if you have any more to add I'll always read.

For education, yes, you did present statistics on one vs. two parent households and poverty.

I remind you that I did it at your request; that I predicted you'd find a way to dismiss them; and that you did dismiss them in a particularly obnoxious fashion, offering a dilatory and evasive lecture about why not to trust statistics.

Then, having executed that little snake dance, you had the gall to ask for more statistics. My answer to that request is "No way." Not because they aren't out there; the evidence you claim to seek is so thoroughly documented that your mere request for data is suspicious. It's as if, in a discussion about physics, you'd ask: "Yeah? Well prove gravity, then." The reason I'm not going to do your research for you is that you've made it abundantly clear that facts don't matter to you, and never will.

I am curious though, these family members of yours, was their point that all evils of the school system can be laid on the parents, or did they perhaps mention that their textbooks were out-of-date, their computers antiquated, their library lacking in modern reading materials, their arts and music programs gutted, and their class sizes rising?

In the systems where my relatives teach, class sizes have declined, schools have been fixed, and there are plenty of teaching aids of various kinds, and after-school programs. One of my relatives gets extra pay to coach two athletic teams.

That same relative has two kids. One entered first grade a few years ago, and the other is coming along soon. There's a city residency requirement where he lives and teaches, so he had to pull some elaborate strings to send his kids out of the city.

I asked him why, and he said it's not because the teachers are bad or the schools are bad, but because the parents are bad. They don't read to their kids. They don't feed them, clothe them, or provide a quiet place to study. They treat school as a daycare center, and the kids view it as play time.

He'd love to send his kids to the city schools. It costs him a pretty big slug of cash to do otherwise. But the classes in the city schools are too screwed up by the unparented kids, so he sends them elsewhere. For a while, until he could get the first kid into the public school, it was to a Catholic school with larger classes, less materials, and fewer extracurriculars.

But that's just an anecdote. It conflicts with your "progressive" catechism, so you'll ignore it. For me, it was a revelation. Unlike you, I listened carefully to what my relative told me. See, I had been in favor of him sending his kids to the city schools. But when he gave me his reasons, I thought, "Hmm, he's there. They're his kids. He knows what he's talking about."

If you want to know what people really think, and how they really live, watch how they raise their kids.

What's more, stop saying that I'm not interested in factual evidence, I'm in fact quite interested to see some. However, I am perfectly willing to challenge sets of facts (as dilligent individuals should) to ensure they are applicable and back up the assertions made by the individual presenting them.

No, you're not. You can claim it until the cows come home, but I gave you rock-solid evidence of the links between poverty and illegitimacy. And the point was hardly new; what I told you has been observed for a long time. In fact, the "progressives" love to cite the very same data when they're asking for more money. But when that data are used as evidence for opinions that are inconvenient, the "progressives" have a fact-attack and become as anti-science as any oil company presented with the evidence that burning fossil fuels is warming up the atmosphere.

It must be a real disappointment to realize that someone not only sees what you're trying to pull, but can put it on such display. Blame the nuns who taught me how to think and write in those huge classes where no one can possibly learn anything.

I will say I think we agree that birth control should be free and readily available to those who want it. However sadly that is not the case in our current society.

Planned Parenthood gives free birth control.

You are correct though, you do reap what you sow, and I'm guessing that what we'll reap with the budget cuts (which I think you support) over the last few years will mainifest itself in plenty of ugly ways in the future.

I don't support the budget cuts. I accept them. You are operating on the wrong mental map. It's not 1973 anymore. The middle class is dying, and it's the middle class that has always provided the bulk of government financing at every level. I could cite the data on that, but you've made it clear that you don't care about facts, so I'm not going to play the sucker and get the evidence only to have you ignore it.

I'm just going to tell you that the cupboard is empty. People aren't supporting budget cuts; they are confronting reality. Here's something for you: Look at almost all the states outside of the South and Alaska, and you'll find that, whatever the mechanism, they take about 10%.

Now look at the sales tax here. The argument for an income tax wasn't to raise more money, it was to raise the same amount of money more equitably. It least that's what it should have been. But the "progressives" just cannot seem to get it through their thick skulls that we've hit the limit, and in the future they'll need to be creative.

You can get as upset as you want with me. You can keep hiding from reality, in whatever manner you do it. But you're not getting any more money. In the next few years, you'll see what I mean, as levy after levy is defeated. The game's over, and you'll be the last to find out.

With that said, I've really no idea what you're talking about with the "paying children to crank our children" comment

Look up "Aid to Families With Dependent Children." That, plus state kickers in fatter times, was a very powerful incentive to teen pregnancy. Your crowd had to be forced away from it, and now the teen pregnancy rates show some cause for long-term hope. No thanks to the "progressives."

There is much more to do, but your crowd will adamantly refuse to pitch in. And then you'll wonder why no one wants to pay you anymore. Eventually it will sink in. Hunger does that, even to the "progressives."

Starting with the Nickles administration, South Seattle and South King County were allowed to devolve into a free fire zone. Activities were allowed to happen that would not have been tolerated north of the Smith Tower.

Now the chickens have come home to roost and the violence rather than being contained has spread upward...prompting various somnambulant citizens to crawl out of their mental beds and yawn "Wha' happen?"

No doubt the thought of huge swathes of urban land becoming suddenly "habitable" for the middle class and the impact that this would have on downtown condos played some role in the extreme "neglect".

While I agree with your assessment of more police needed, the untold story is of the rise of meth in the club scene and a sea of illegal guns available just below the surface of our society. Banning them is not going to help. Providing more police is the right solution, along with real drug treatment (see Portugal for an idea of how to handle it), and a serious attempt to stop the flow of meth and weapons into the city.

Rather than telling us to "see Portugal," why don't you give us a concise and informative summary of what they do there?