Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The 98-percent Conundrum
I've been wondering about this John Street-ism for some time. A small bit of back story: Our fine Mayor went on the record last month saying that 98% of homicide victims in the city were intentional victims. Tom Waring of the Northeast Times wrote:
"And, more than half of the murders have taken place indoors — making it virtually impossible to prevent.In fact, Street said 98 percent of the murders in 2006 were “victim specific,” meaning the killer targeted the deceased."
I don't know what about that number gives me such pause, but it stuck in my head ever since I saw the snippet of the news conference, given in part to feature Street's pushback against Lynnie Abraham and a few mayoral candidates who were harping on the murder rate and hawking various 'for-our-own-good' pseudo-draconian solutions.
Maybe because its such a high figure. . . so close, not perfect, but just shy--reminding me of the elctoral victories in banana republic police states or any authoritarian regime featuring a cheap veneer of democracy. "Why of course there's dissent, comrade bourgeois journalista, just look at the results."
The figure also harkens back toVietnam press gaggles where the journalists began to realize after months of mind-numbing monotone reports, that US and ARVN forces never, in any day anyone could recall, killed the enemy in quantities ending in 0 or 5. "US troops killed 23 NVA regulars, wounded 16, and killed 31 suspected Vietcong in action outside of Phuc Yieu today." etc etc etc. Just so perfect and consistent as to be a bit suspicious.
BUT, this is indeed a highly important number for us, this 98%. So where does it come from and what does it include? At first glance it would seem to really empower premeditated murderers. But who is included in that? When Faheem Thomas Childs was gunned down, there was an actual 'intended' victim of a hit on the other side of that path of bullets that strayed into the path of yet another yound dead 'unintended' victim. Is he .98 or .2 in the tally? And of course we can't deny that such a pronouncement by the Mayor has intended implications for 'good people in good neighborhoods' with a fine coating of 'white people' glossed over that as well. It's "those" people who are killing one another in "their" neighborhoods.
Yet, hey, there are also serious policy considerations here. Where we best direct our efforts, for one. If Street's numbers are correct, then a flood of police placing curfews on certain high-crime areas will have only little impact at the expense of lots of dollars that we don't have. If Street's figures are right it would justify more direct intervention, profiling, looking at rescidivists with marked histories of violence and revenge, more parole officers and mentors rather than squad cars and checkpoints.
We need to approach this the right way to be successful. So are Street's numbers correct? That is the starting point.
I've been wondering about this John Street-ism for some time. A small bit of back story: Our fine Mayor went on the record last month saying that 98% of homicide victims in the city were intentional victims. Tom Waring of the Northeast Times wrote:
"And, more than half of the murders have taken place indoors — making it virtually impossible to prevent.In fact, Street said 98 percent of the murders in 2006 were “victim specific,” meaning the killer targeted the deceased."
I don't know what about that number gives me such pause, but it stuck in my head ever since I saw the snippet of the news conference, given in part to feature Street's pushback against Lynnie Abraham and a few mayoral candidates who were harping on the murder rate and hawking various 'for-our-own-good' pseudo-draconian solutions.
Maybe because its such a high figure. . . so close, not perfect, but just shy--reminding me of the elctoral victories in banana republic police states or any authoritarian regime featuring a cheap veneer of democracy. "Why of course there's dissent, comrade bourgeois journalista, just look at the results."
The figure also harkens back toVietnam press gaggles where the journalists began to realize after months of mind-numbing monotone reports, that US and ARVN forces never, in any day anyone could recall, killed the enemy in quantities ending in 0 or 5. "US troops killed 23 NVA regulars, wounded 16, and killed 31 suspected Vietcong in action outside of Phuc Yieu today." etc etc etc. Just so perfect and consistent as to be a bit suspicious.
BUT, this is indeed a highly important number for us, this 98%. So where does it come from and what does it include? At first glance it would seem to really empower premeditated murderers. But who is included in that? When Faheem Thomas Childs was gunned down, there was an actual 'intended' victim of a hit on the other side of that path of bullets that strayed into the path of yet another yound dead 'unintended' victim. Is he .98 or .2 in the tally? And of course we can't deny that such a pronouncement by the Mayor has intended implications for 'good people in good neighborhoods' with a fine coating of 'white people' glossed over that as well. It's "those" people who are killing one another in "their" neighborhoods.
Yet, hey, there are also serious policy considerations here. Where we best direct our efforts, for one. If Street's numbers are correct, then a flood of police placing curfews on certain high-crime areas will have only little impact at the expense of lots of dollars that we don't have. If Street's figures are right it would justify more direct intervention, profiling, looking at rescidivists with marked histories of violence and revenge, more parole officers and mentors rather than squad cars and checkpoints.
We need to approach this the right way to be successful. So are Street's numbers correct? That is the starting point.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Molly. . .
I can't bring myself to say "Rest in Peace" or any such claptrap. It appears that few of us can out here in cyberspace. This quote from Spocko's Brain says it all:
"I'm sure Molly Ivins herself would appreciate the irony of an entire cohort of talented writers, particularly feminist bloggers, being stripped of all our considerable reserves of eloquence (one comment at Pandagon consisted, in its entirety, of "Crap. Crap crap crap.") at the news of her death."
I had the true pleasure of seeing you speak at a few small events while I was living in Austin. Nothing big, but you were always there to lend your considerable name to a rally in hopes of attracting a few more people to something that would've otherwise gone sparsely atended if not missed entirely. You were, and always will be, one of the 'big' people. Big of heart and even larger of smile, you continued to the end to remind us that amongst all the rage progressives needed to have a sense of humor and a smile on their faces as they stormed the barricades against injustice, incompetence, and just plain awful, selfish acts on the part of our government.
I'll let your final words in print speak for you. Far better than I could ever hope to do. But, Molly, Godammit, I miss you something fierce already. If there is such a thing as the big 'gang-pluck' in the sky, I know you're already there. . . standing next to the boiling pot with a big grin on your face knowing exactly which of the many potential pluckees deserve the honor.
In your temporal absence, we'll keep pluckin' down here. . . you just keep laughin' and keep the pot boiling.
Late Addition: Any real tribute should include that from the Texas Observer, which Molly helped popularize yea so many years ago, or better yet, her own letter from the first time she left home to head to the Big Apple: It's as fitting a goodbye now from her as it was then.
I can't bring myself to say "Rest in Peace" or any such claptrap. It appears that few of us can out here in cyberspace. This quote from Spocko's Brain says it all:
"I'm sure Molly Ivins herself would appreciate the irony of an entire cohort of talented writers, particularly feminist bloggers, being stripped of all our considerable reserves of eloquence (one comment at Pandagon consisted, in its entirety, of "Crap. Crap crap crap.") at the news of her death."
I had the true pleasure of seeing you speak at a few small events while I was living in Austin. Nothing big, but you were always there to lend your considerable name to a rally in hopes of attracting a few more people to something that would've otherwise gone sparsely atended if not missed entirely. You were, and always will be, one of the 'big' people. Big of heart and even larger of smile, you continued to the end to remind us that amongst all the rage progressives needed to have a sense of humor and a smile on their faces as they stormed the barricades against injustice, incompetence, and just plain awful, selfish acts on the part of our government.
I'll let your final words in print speak for you. Far better than I could ever hope to do. But, Molly, Godammit, I miss you something fierce already. If there is such a thing as the big 'gang-pluck' in the sky, I know you're already there. . . standing next to the boiling pot with a big grin on your face knowing exactly which of the many potential pluckees deserve the honor.
In your temporal absence, we'll keep pluckin' down here. . . you just keep laughin' and keep the pot boiling.
Late Addition: Any real tribute should include that from the Texas Observer, which Molly helped popularize yea so many years ago, or better yet, her own letter from the first time she left home to head to the Big Apple: It's as fitting a goodbye now from her as it was then.
Labels: RIP
