reply to post by jibeho
First off, this is an op-ed by Michelle Malkin, graduate of the Ann Coulter school of "journalism".
Second, the "record breaking number of murders in 2012", sorry, no. The record is 970 back in 1974. That's nearly twice the 504 in 2012. 1974 saw
29 homicides per 100,000 residents. 2012 was at 18/100,000 so even by that metric it's still a lie. (To make a point, Oklahoma City has a homicide
rate of roughly 17/100,000. According to the Brady Campaign Oklahoma is second in the nation in least restrictive gun laws trailing only Utah. Salt
Lake City had 49 in 2012 with a population under 200,000 equating to about 25/100,000.) Facts don't fit the narrative? Facts be damned!
Third, Chicago doesn't have the strictest gun laws. Washington DC does (88 homicides in 2012 - 14/100,000), followed by the entirety of New York
state, and then Hawaii and California. Other entire states such as Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have essentially
the same level of gun control as the city of Chicago. Recall the Supreme Court decision of McDonald v. Chicago from June, 2010 removing the handgun
ban. (Just to play the NRA correlation is causation game, do notice that since the SCOTUS decision the Chicago murder rates have skyrocketed.)
So just how is it audacious for the POTUS to go to his hometown, which has gun crime issues, to discuss gun crime issues?!? It seems rather
appropriate, does it not? Perhaps he should find some tiny town that hasn't had a gun crime in decades to discuss it instead? That wouldn't make
much sense. The gun crime problems in Chicago have so many more facets than gun control or fatherless homes.
To whack-a-doo Malkin's op-ed:
...presided over a massive "Plan for Transformation" in the mid-1990s to rescue taxpayer-subsidized public housing from its bloody hellhole.
How'd that work out for you, Chicago?
It worked out pretty well, actually. Violent crime and murder rates dropped dramatically after these initiatives. Murders fell from 931 in 1994 to 828
in '95, to 796 in '96, and on down to 435 in 2011. Graph
wasn't the only policy that influenced the drop-off, but it was significant.
A close friend owns a grocery store in Hegewisch, the neighborhood directly east of Altgeld Gardens. The major issue there is the fact that the
government ever built ghettoes. When you talk about ghettoes, you must discuss economic issues. Having been there dozens of times, it's not pretty.
But the area is not a hotbed of violence and crime. The only
reason Malkin even mentioned Altgeld Gardens is because Obama once worked within
the community there and she is trying to score points with her ignorant readers that have literally zero knowledge of the area.
Grove Parc Plaza - What Malkin doesn't say is what Binyamin Appelbaum explains:
Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage
affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.
This is actually a common problem everywhere this happens. Private companies running public housing for profit, first and foremost. However, to my
knowledge Grove Parc no longer exists and has entirely new facilties under construction. I rarely ever go through the Woodlawn neighborhood so I
don't have first-hand knowledge of what's going on there. I do recall an article in the Sun-Times a while back, though I can't find it.
is the best I can do.
In the end, Malkin, much like every regressive columnist, gives zero
alternatives to the current policies. Do I believe the current policies
are working? Well, yes and no. Have they improved things? A bit in some situations. Have they solved the problems? Nope. Do I believe the policies
need to be changed? Yep. Do I have the answers? Nope. Does Malkin give any alternate options? Nope. Did she essentially write an article full of lies,
spin and a whole lot of nothing? Yep.