Indianapolis FOP President Rick Snyder meeting with President today.

[Indyhd]

At one point several years back there were enough vacant schools in Indy they could have turned into minimum security jails or homeless shelters. Not sure if that is the case anymore.
I agree, make the consequences very harsh and that will help.

 

[Leadeye]

Chain prisoners to the back of a dump truck and have them filling up pot holes.

 

[HoughMade]

Black communities need to start making it cool to be a dad and stick around...

Well, sure, and African American kids seem to be the biggest victims of this, but the outcomes are the same in every community where fathers are absent, it’s just that the African-American community has the highest percentage of out-of-wedlock births.

We need to bring back the concept of being ashamed. Society has eliminated it thinking that people do bad things because they feel bad about themselves, so let’s not make them feel bad about themselves. That’s like dealing with the problem of bad grades by never giving a grade below C regardless of the work or dealing with the problem of too many suspensions by not suspending people anymore regardless of their behavior.

The truth is, people do less bad things when they are ashamed to do them and society at large needs to look in shame upon people who do bad things. People should be ashamed of having kids out of wedlock. They should be ashamed of not supporting their kids. They should be ashamed of not living in the same household as their kids and actively raising them.

But, but, but- people will feel bad. There’s an easy way to avoid that- don’t do things that cause you to be ashamed.

 

[Leadeye]

Well, sure, and African American kids seem to be the biggest victims of this, but the outcomes are the same in every community where fathers are absent, it’s just that the African-American community has the highest percentage of out-of-wedlock births.

We need to bring back the concept of being ashamed. Society has eliminated it thinking that people do bad things because they feel bad about themselves, so let’s not make them feel bad about themselves. That’s like dealing with the problem of bad grades by never giving a grade below C regardless of the work or dealing with the problem of too many suspensions by not suspending people anymore regardless of their behavior.

The truth is, people do less bad things when they are ashamed to do them and society at large needs to look in shame upon people who do bad things. People should be ashamed of having kids out of wedlock. They should be ashamed of not supporting their kids. They should be ashamed of not living in the same household as their kids and actively raising them.

But, but, but- people will feel bad. There’s an easy way to avoid that- don’t do things that cause you to be ashamed.

I agree, but it needs to start with what passes for leadership or whatever people look up to these days.

 

[Methane Herder]

And shepherds we shall be...



(Only the cool kids will get this)

Are you implying that these aren't the acts of " huge serial crushers"?

MH

 

[Sigblitz]

There was a thread for this, but I can't find it.
The FOP wanted to start a committee to address the high crime in Indianapolis, but Meyor Joe said we don't need on.
Move along. There's nothing to see here.

 

[VUPDblue]

Any honest “study” or “committee” will draw two simple conclusions: 1) let the police....police 2) Keep the violent *******s in jail where they belong. If a person gets locked up for armed robbery or anything violent, they should not be released with an ankle bracelet.

 

[drillsgt]

Well, sure, and African American kids seem to be the biggest victims of this, but the outcomes are the same in every community where fathers are absent, it’s just that the African-American community has the highest percentage of out-of-wedlock births.

We need to bring back the concept of being ashamed. Society has eliminated it thinking that people do bad things because they feel bad about themselves, so let’s not make them feel bad about themselves. That’s like dealing with the problem of bad grades by never giving a grade below C regardless of the work or dealing with the problem of too many suspensions by not suspending people anymore regardless of their behavior.

The truth is, people do less bad things when they are ashamed to do them and society at large needs to look in shame upon people who do bad things. People should be ashamed of having kids out of wedlock. They should be ashamed of not supporting their kids. They should be ashamed of not living in the same household as their kids and actively raising them.

But, but, but- people will feel bad. There’s an easy way to avoid that- don’t do things that cause you to be ashamed.

Good post, couldn't rep you again but tried.

 

[COOPADUP]

The passion Mr. Snyder has about this issue is awesome.
City government just wants to sweep it under the rug.

 

[Twangbanger]

The calls for it to stop are gonna come soon, theyÂ’re making their way west. Hendricks has seen a marked increase in serious violent crime here of late. Home invasion murder, and robbery shootings in the last two weeks alone. The more warehouses that go up, the more busses deposit folks that donÂ’t live here, to hangout after shift and walk around nearby subdivisions at night. Avon/Plainfield soccer moms arenÂ’t going to have it.

Oh yeah? The "Soccer Moms" and their families will move away. "White Flight." Happens lots of places. They leave behind tons of homes diminished in value. Those homes get inhabited by the relatives of the problem element, who either A) have legitimately-earned income, or B) are able to cobble together enough different forms of public assistance by living with the right people and pooling their resources. They can make enough to pay the rent in this manner. Those houses then become the "base camp" where children are raised and the next generation of problem element is reared, to spread the problem further outward.

Public Assistance makes this possible. We hate to see children suffer. I hate to say it, but generations of children suffered for America to be built. People my grandparents' age, or even the parents of people my age (51), can remember it. We think children should be forcibly liberated from the economic conditions of their parents, via government action, to "give them a chance." We think it is unfair for children to be trapped in the circumstances and bad decisions of their parents. I am not necessarily in favor of children suffering, but the forcible attempt to eradicate it at all costs has a price both economic and moral. These kids are being provided for materially, but not morally. The result is a social disaster. When do you cut your losses and sever the financial artery?

This genie is hard to put back in the bottle. More prisons, coupled with the will to use them, can definitely have a role (and employ a lot of public safety people). But are you going to turn an entire Plainfield warehouse (or 6) into prisons? I fear that if you don't have the old-fashioned hardness of heart to "cut the artery," more prisons is simply the late-stage "program milestone" of building-out the problem to a larger scale. You are not reversing the problem; you are simply expanding the mitigation mechanism.

My parents and grandparents got out of bed in the morning and got dressed and went out to be productive, in part, because they knew there was simply nothing or nobody providing for their material needs if they didn't. When you know there is no "net" under you, the consequences of your decisions are crucial, and you make those decisions accordingly. At least some portion of the solution needs to be getting back to that. It is a huge, huge part of what made us, as a country, what we are. Yes, it's true that not everybody had a happy outcome under that system. But I think we also agree not everybody has a happy outcome now. It is a major part of the reason why I oppose many of the compassion-oriented solutions of the left.

It is also a large part of why I support the economic and trade policies of Donald Trump. When you send the factories away to increase the returns of stockholders, and make it nearly impossible for people of low skill to make a decent existence for themselves, a life of public assistance literally makes sense because people can get more than what they get by working. It exacerbates all the problems we're discussing. If the earnings of labor for the low-skilled are going to continue to be blown to bits by unrestrained globalism, I think we lose a critical tool for combating the problem. You cannot ask people to support themselves, then take away all forms of doing that which don't require a Master's degree. The Silicon Valley view ("learn to code") and the Mike Rowe view ("be an electrician") are not comprehensive society-level solutions to this.

America is not the same as the rest of the world. We are different, special, and exceptional. Our people should not have to play by rules set by brutal Chinese bureaucrats and Mexican drug cartels. We were "paternalistically shielded," for lack of a better phrase, from this international reality to some degree for much of our nation's existence. I think if we cannot draw some boundary of non-competition around what goes on in places like Mexico and China, and place American workers on the other side of that - then we ask people to cut off the safety net and compete against dysfunctional foreign societies in ways our grandparents never dreamed of - we should not be surprised when people say "Eff That!" They are going to choose a life of dependency, and our neighborhoods ironically begin to look more like what goes on in those other places (cf. Flint, Michigan, and scores of others).

The Federal Government got its main source of revenue from Tariffs for the first 150 years of our existence as a country (side note: how's that Income Tax working out for ya?). I'm not saying we go back to that; but I am pointing out that America was not a strict Milton Friedman economic libertarian society for the duration of its rise and overall existence. Americans are simply never going to tolerate it. That viewpoint is _not_ the timeless capitalistic essence of America that we have been led to believe it is. It was rather a relatively recent concept which was opportunistically seized-upon in the wake of Reagan's victory in the 1980s. The next 50 years of politics are going to be won by the party which first, A) realizes that, and B) offers a political solution addressing the rigged system we currently have. The democrats are firmly on the side of public assistance, social grievance, and to some extent free trade. But Bernie and Warren are forcing cracks in parts of that foundation.

Trump is giving the GOP the opportunity to get on the right side of this, before Democrats figure it out. It would behoove the GOP to listen to Trump, and get on board before the Democratic Party perfects their message. If "we" want a law-and-order society with a smaller safety net, where working is rewarded above dependence, and where we get to keep our guns, then the "Romney Wing" of the party must be soundly defeated. They cannot have it both ways, and symbolically support voters while actually siding with donors. If that's the Republican message, few are going to choose it over the alternative. If we want people to work hard, they're going to have to be offered the same deal our grandparents got. This involves some degree of protection against places like China and Mexico. If people of low skill are told they have to compete on level terms with Mexicans and Chinese, they are going to demand a safety net. Democrats win. No way around it.

​