Huh? How is pointing out that one solution won't work helping to solve a problem?

The constitutional stop and frisk program Nutter has proposed has worked in other cities. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

I was asking what other solutions he might propose.

I think teaching conflict resolution is a good idea also. I agree that it is clearly a skill these kids lack, and I do believe that a well-organized effort to teach it would make a difference. But I'd have to question whether schools that haven't been able to teach them to read or write will be successful in teaching them to resolve issues without violence. And why would that have to be an either/or question? why not teach them not to use guns to resolve issues and make it harder for them to carry illegal weapons as well?

lol haha... ummm... duh? If you are trying to solve a problem, and you take actions that don't address the problem, once the actions are completed, the problem will still exist. If someone points out to you, before you take the actions that don't address the problem, that they won't work, than you can forgo that plan, and start sooner on something that will work.

You bring up a good point though - I agree stop and frisk will work, in that it will reduce homicides, I guess when I was saying it won't "work" I meant that the cost of that solution is too high. I mean, if we put thorozine in the water, no one would kill each other either, everyone would be passed out, but that is totally rediculous. Brute effectiveness is not the only way of judging a solution. But I am glad I had the opportunity to clear that up. I was not clear at all before.

__________________
www.westpoplarnac.org

Oh, that must be something similar to NEVER TRYING ANYTHING because it might not work.

It has worked in other cities, that's called evidence. Why would it not work here?

You say the cost is too high. Higher than 400 dead people per year? I would like to know what that cost would be.

Eeeuw. Must you write like this?

[Miss Manners, in a rare excursion from her SWCC turf, exits muttering]

All this talking about Michael Nutter not being black enough reminds me of something that actually happened as my husband was helping a kid with his bike some years ago, when the street was teeming with kids and they all called him "Mr. Fixit" because he had a bicycle pump and a patch kit. The boy, around five to seven years old, had obviously heard the phrase but didn't know exactly what it meant, and he asked my husband "why you talking white?"

My husband, then in his mid sixties, looked at the boy for a minute and replied, "because I am white." The boy's face, as he processed this exchange, was priceless.

__________________
LBphilly
lb_philly@yahoo.com
"Free speech is enhanced by civility."--Tim O'Reilly

Phillyblog's best tool to enhance civility
Look far left on the blue bar, right over the Google search bar:
User CP > Miscellaneous > Buddy/Ignore Lists

oh yeah. and that is true. most people, most of the time, don't learn a damn thing in school.
conflict resolution would be a little different in that it would be taught by outside people brought in [hopefully, for it to mean anything], you know teachers get in fist fights at school too?
Learning to read is a lot more difficult than learning non-violence. Non-violence has been tought wholesale to otherwise uneducated populations before: in india, in the american south. it can be thought through more institutions than just schools: churches, workplaces, other social networks.
It takes a concerted effort and dedication on the part of several parts of a society. the good thing about it is that it is a long term solution, whereas stop and frisk is not. The bad thing about it is it is hard: it takes hard work, Imagination (the hardest part of all) and real, personal, change.

__________________
www.westpoplarnac.org

I couldn't agree with you more that teaching EVERYBODY in our society about better conflict resolution would benefit us all. I have seen so many situations spiral out of control for no reason, just because no one knew how to defuse a situation rather than increase the tension. It would make for a better world.

I also agree that it could be taught in other social networks besides school. However, it seems like the most difficult folks to reach are the ones who are living mostly outside of the social networks, which is exactly why they are more prone to violence in general.

Why is everything an either/or solution as opposed to layering potential solutions together?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x-fkSYDtUY

"Censorship is free advertising by the government"--Federico Fellini

"Do you mind if I smoke while you eat?"

nooooooo....... it's not never trying anything, it's not trying things that cost too much or are ineffective.

yeah, the cost is living in a place where the police are licensed to stop, search, and harrass anyone they see fit. This is a value judgement. This is a personal cost benefit analysis. If we talked for a long time, you would find there is almost nothing in this world, no problem, that would make me turn to this solution.

It also has to do with the fact that this 400 dead is not, directly, my problem - it is not my community that is slaughtering each other for sneakers. When I have disagreements with my friends and acquantances, we do not turn to violence to resolve the issue, and on the RARE occasions that kind of thing happens, no one, No One, takes it to a lethal level.

There are communities in Philadelphia that do use violence to solve problems, but not most communities. The numbers dead attest to their dedication to this method, not the method's prevailance. It's not fair to subject everyone - and we would all be subjected to sudden, purposeless, search and seizure - for the cultural failings of a few.

Have you ever been arrested? I have, it's miserable. have you ever been harrassed by the police? it is infuriating, it is humiliating, it is the absolute worst interaction with the government I would ever like to have. Personally, what is the benefit to me, to give the police MORE power over me? why? what do I gain? I am not in danger of being shot, because those are not the kind of people I roll with, I care about my life.

Not to mention the irony of addressing a problem of too much violence by using MORE violence.
If people are using violence to solve problems, and getting themselves shot because of it, a coherent solution is for the state to use more, stronger, violence? what does that teach people? that teaches people, again, when there is a problem, go to the muscle, go to the guns. That is the whole attitude we are trying to get out of. Stop and frisk is more of the same, it is a step backwards.

__________________
www.westpoplarnac.org

I think this idea is risky, but it could also have a significant positive effect if implemented correctly (listen to the radio show I linked to earlier in this thread -- it's been done elsewhere).

Also, for the people implying that Nutter wants to violate people's civil rights, remember that one of the first things he did while on city council was create the Police Advisory Commission, which investigates possible police abuses of people's civil rights.

__________________
Welcome to Philadelphia. Here's how you can help us make our great city even better:

• Write to your state and local elected officials
• Report suspicious activity to the police department

On the subject of conflict resolution, Nutter's crime plan also includes expanding the successful youth violence prevention program (which includes organizations with conflict resolution initiatives like IDAAY) city-wide. I agree that the stop and frisk idea is a band-aid, but that's all it's meant to be. There are other solutions that will have better results long-term, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't implement short term solutions.

__________________
Welcome to Philadelphia. Here's how you can help us make our great city even better:

• Write to your state and local elected officials
• Report suspicious activity to the police department