6 ms·

> It seems to me that reinvesting budgets spent on surplus humvees on more/better school counselors is a perfectly reasonable goal. While that sounds great on

> It seems to me that reinvesting budgets spent on surplus humvees on more/better school counselors is a perfectly reasonable goal. While that sounds great on paper, nothing the schools do is going to make a difference if the family support at home isn't there. You can't just throw money at the problem to make it better. Anecdotal, but my sister used to work as a teacher & reading specialist in poorer areas. Per my last conversation with her on this topic, she said maybe 20% of the kids have a solid backing from family for education. The rest she had interacted with for one reason or another were a mix of parents who told her it was her job to teach and they wouldn't do that at home; another group of parents that were too drunk/drugged out to even answer the phone or call back; and another that would just swear at her for bothering them at home. All of her co-workers had similar accounts of this happening. Kids that did want to learn in class were bullied for "acting white" and there were physical fights occurring weekly. She didn't teach high school, she taught 4/5th grade. For us to make any progress with poorer schools there needs to be a community focus on education, having respect for each other, and having respect for the law. If you grow up for 18 years in an environment without those then nothing matters long term and we end up in the vicious cycle of poverty, crime, imprisonment, broken families and even more kids going through the same thing.

manicdee 6y ago
Throwing money at the problem helps a lot to some extent: - putting food on the table - putting kids through school with at least one new set of clothes a year - having food in your belly makes it far easier to cope with the endless "why" questions of the curious child Sure, there are social issues to address as well, but don't go assuming that throwing money at the problem won't help at all.
zdragnar 6y ago
It is sad to see this downvoted, I know several people who were outcasts for "acting white" by trying hard in school (their words, not mine). The issue really isn't about race though, it is about poverty and culture. I know a kindergarten teacher from a very rural, very white, very poor school district who was cussed out by one of her 5 year old students. The parents don't care, and it shows in the students' progression through school and young adulthood. If parents show up at all, it is to yell at teachers for giving their children bad grades or any sort of discipline. Of course, putting any sort of onus on the parents gets talked down, as it undermines the argument that things will magically get better if only we threw more money at the problem... because the problem isn't the school or the teachers at all.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  What responsibility do we have as a nation to reconcile our past actions that caused unmeasurable suffering for untold millions of people? Have we no courage, no sense of moral obligation to make things right? The culture of black communities dealing with poverty and crime that you refer to didn't come from nowhere. It was not simply imported from 17th century Africa, in the way that the apple pie was brought over from England. It is a product of a people who were bravely struggling and striving to cope in the worst possible circumstances. Brutally enslaved for more than 200 years, their literal chains finally removed, they continued to be viciously abused and systematically and savagely oppressed throughout the following century. They weren't event treated as fully human by the federal law until 2 generations ago. Only two generations! Many states had incredibly racist and oppressive laws even more recently than that. The most cursory research reveals an utterly depraved history. One simple and terrible example is redlining, which unfortunately was occurring even after the civil rights act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining). We have a duty as a nation to attempt to heal the damage that we have caused. It is impossible to fully mend what we have broken, but we damn well better try.
  - acituan 6y ago
    > We have a duty as a nation to attempt to heal the damage that we have caused. 25% percent of the US’s population as a nation is 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, a substantial portion of which arrived after 1965 because desegregation and immigration reforms coincide. [1] Whatever “we” you might be thinking, it risks running an egocentric fallacy to assume it expands to the entirety of the US population. [1] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation...
    - dwaltrip 6y ago
      They moved here knowing some things in the US are broken. They can pitch in to help us fix it. I’d guess that most would be be honored to do so.
bhupy 6y ago
> You can't just throw money at the problem to make it better. To really underscore this point, it’s worth looking at the inflation adjusted total per-pupil education expenditures over time: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.asp?current=yes https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.a...
diffeomorphism 6y ago
So invest that money there, too? > having respect for the law Additional humvees buy you fear not respect.
shirakawasuna 6y ago
We can argue about the marginal benefit of investing in late-stage interventions, but it's certainly doing more than cops buying Humvees and LARPING as tacticool warriors.
- tomschlick 6y ago
  Generally armored vehicles police get as surplus are sold at basically the price of gas / transportation to get them to their destination. The feds just want them off their books. That compared to the price of a new Lenco Bearcat is hundreds of thousands of dollars less for a more capable vehicle. I have never once seen those vehicles used in regular law enforcement duties such as traffic stops. They are used in exceptional cases like active shooter situations, hostage / barricaded / swat scenarios, natural disasters like flooding due to their high clearance, and the occasional parade or community day to let kids play in the big truck. In all, they are a defensive vehicle with no weapons that costs the department very little and has a wide range of uses if the shit hits the fan. I really don't get the outrage of them other than the optics of it "being from the military" and idiots calling them "tanks". If there are specific bad uses of police force those are great to call out, but the utility of the vehicle which is basically free for a real world need is a no brainer.
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    I mean, they buy all kinds of military surplus or "tacticool" gear. Here's a random article going over a bit of it: https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2020/08/03/police-in-tampa-bay-get-millions-in-military-gear-do-they-need-it/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2020/08/03/police-in-tam... My police department should not be anywhere near militarized. It's inappropriate, wrong, and is a waste of funds because they should not be kitted out that way. They bring out those vehicles during protests, among other things. People standing around chanting. Then they wait until curfew is over, maybe declare the assembly unlawful, and start using chemical weapons and intimidation on the crowd.
    - tomschlick 6y ago
      > rock-throwing protesters versus police officers wearing body armor and gas masks, carrying ballistic shields and lobbing flash grenades. So regular riot control equipment in 95% of the world... The only other stuff they mention are semi-auto rifles which are not militarization. Us civilians have the same rifles which are way more accurate than a standard handgun. I dont want an officer using a handgun at 50-100 yards trying to stop an active shooter, I want them to have the best tool for the job which would be a patrol rifle. That's safer for everyone, especially bystanders. > My police department should not be anywhere near militarized. It's inappropriate, wrong, and is a waste of funds because they should not be kitted out that way. How is riot control pads / shields and an armored vehicle to stop bullets and rocks being thrown militarization? I don't see any offensive weapons used other than crowd control agents which last I checked are used in most of the world for the same purpose. They also still use fire hoses in many other countries which we stopped doing in the 60s due to the bad optics of them during the racial tension. > They bring out those vehicles during protests, among other things. Judging how the protests have turned to riots over the past few months in major cities, they are completely justified in doing so. Getting rocks, molotov cocktails and everything else under the sun thrown at you when you're trying to stop people from burning down communities would make me want the best protection too. But even in those cases the vehicles are used as transport and command / observation platforms. You mostly have a problem with crowd control tactics it sounds like which are pretty standard when dealing with a declared riot. Here is a good video on the tactics with explanations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT9bit2-1pg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT9bit2-1pg
istjohn 6y ago
>...we end up in the vicious cycle of poverty, crime, imprisonment, broken families and even more kids going through the same thing. Poverty. That's the root issue. But it's cheaper to blame the poverty on bad additudes and poor choices rather than acknowledge the causality goes in the other direction and pony up the cash for programs to break the cycle of poverty.
- loco5niner 6y ago
  Poverty is the result, not the cause. Bad attitudes and poor choices lead to poverty in America, not the other way around.
- logicchains 6y ago
  Then home come the poor migrants from China, India, Mexico and even Africa who come to America end up doing so well?
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Not only is that a copout and demonstrably false, but giving people money makes poverty worse, not better. It’s counterintuitive, and unfortunately proponents of hand-outs act out of emotion and (naive) intuition, not data. They often harm those they intend to help as a result.

manicdee 6y ago

Throwing money at the problem helps a lot to some extent: - putting food on the table - putting kids through school with at least one new set of clothes a year - having food in your belly makes it far easier to cope with the endless "why" questions of the curious child Sure, there are social issues to address as well, but don't go assuming that throwing money at the problem won't help at all.

zdragnar 6y ago

It is sad to see this downvoted, I know several people who were outcasts for "acting white" by trying hard in school (their words, not mine). The issue really isn't about race though, it is about poverty and culture. I know a kindergarten teacher from a very rural, very white, very poor school district who was cussed out by one of her 5 year old students. The parents don't care, and it shows in the students' progression through school and young adulthood. If parents show up at all, it is to yell at teachers for giving their children bad grades or any sort of discipline. Of course, putting any sort of onus on the parents gets talked down, as it undermines the argument that things will magically get better if only we threw more money at the problem... because the problem isn't the school or the teachers at all.

dwaltrip 6y ago
What responsibility do we have as a nation to reconcile our past actions that caused unmeasurable suffering for untold millions of people? Have we no courage, no sense of moral obligation to make things right? The culture of black communities dealing with poverty and crime that you refer to didn't come from nowhere. It was not simply imported from 17th century Africa, in the way that the apple pie was brought over from England. It is a product of a people who were bravely struggling and striving to cope in the worst possible circumstances. Brutally enslaved for more than 200 years, their literal chains finally removed, they continued to be viciously abused and systematically and savagely oppressed throughout the following century. They weren't event treated as fully human by the federal law until 2 generations ago. Only two generations! Many states had incredibly racist and oppressive laws even more recently than that. The most cursory research reveals an utterly depraved history. One simple and terrible example is redlining, which unfortunately was occurring even after the civil rights act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining). We have a duty as a nation to attempt to heal the damage that we have caused. It is impossible to fully mend what we have broken, but we damn well better try.
- acituan 6y ago
  > We have a duty as a nation to attempt to heal the damage that we have caused. 25% percent of the US’s population as a nation is 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, a substantial portion of which arrived after 1965 because desegregation and immigration reforms coincide. [1] Whatever “we” you might be thinking, it risks running an egocentric fallacy to assume it expands to the entirety of the US population. [1] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation...
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    They moved here knowing some things in the US are broken. They can pitch in to help us fix it. I’d guess that most would be be honored to do so.

bhupy 6y ago

> You can't just throw money at the problem to make it better. To really underscore this point, it’s worth looking at the inflation adjusted total per-pupil education expenditures over time: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.asp?current=yes https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.a...

diffeomorphism 6y ago

So invest that money there, too? > having respect for the law Additional humvees buy you fear not respect.

shirakawasuna 6y ago

We can argue about the marginal benefit of investing in late-stage interventions, but it's certainly doing more than cops buying Humvees and LARPING as tacticool warriors.

tomschlick 6y ago
Generally armored vehicles police get as surplus are sold at basically the price of gas / transportation to get them to their destination. The feds just want them off their books. That compared to the price of a new Lenco Bearcat is hundreds of thousands of dollars less for a more capable vehicle. I have never once seen those vehicles used in regular law enforcement duties such as traffic stops. They are used in exceptional cases like active shooter situations, hostage / barricaded / swat scenarios, natural disasters like flooding due to their high clearance, and the occasional parade or community day to let kids play in the big truck. In all, they are a defensive vehicle with no weapons that costs the department very little and has a wide range of uses if the shit hits the fan. I really don't get the outrage of them other than the optics of it "being from the military" and idiots calling them "tanks". If there are specific bad uses of police force those are great to call out, but the utility of the vehicle which is basically free for a real world need is a no brainer.
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  I mean, they buy all kinds of military surplus or "tacticool" gear. Here's a random article going over a bit of it: https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2020/08/03/police-in-tampa-bay-get-millions-in-military-gear-do-they-need-it/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2020/08/03/police-in-tam... My police department should not be anywhere near militarized. It's inappropriate, wrong, and is a waste of funds because they should not be kitted out that way. They bring out those vehicles during protests, among other things. People standing around chanting. Then they wait until curfew is over, maybe declare the assembly unlawful, and start using chemical weapons and intimidation on the crowd.
  - tomschlick 6y ago
    > rock-throwing protesters versus police officers wearing body armor and gas masks, carrying ballistic shields and lobbing flash grenades. So regular riot control equipment in 95% of the world... The only other stuff they mention are semi-auto rifles which are not militarization. Us civilians have the same rifles which are way more accurate than a standard handgun. I dont want an officer using a handgun at 50-100 yards trying to stop an active shooter, I want them to have the best tool for the job which would be a patrol rifle. That's safer for everyone, especially bystanders. > My police department should not be anywhere near militarized. It's inappropriate, wrong, and is a waste of funds because they should not be kitted out that way. How is riot control pads / shields and an armored vehicle to stop bullets and rocks being thrown militarization? I don't see any offensive weapons used other than crowd control agents which last I checked are used in most of the world for the same purpose. They also still use fire hoses in many other countries which we stopped doing in the 60s due to the bad optics of them during the racial tension. > They bring out those vehicles during protests, among other things. Judging how the protests have turned to riots over the past few months in major cities, they are completely justified in doing so. Getting rocks, molotov cocktails and everything else under the sun thrown at you when you're trying to stop people from burning down communities would make me want the best protection too. But even in those cases the vehicles are used as transport and command / observation platforms. You mostly have a problem with crowd control tactics it sounds like which are pretty standard when dealing with a declared riot. Here is a good video on the tactics with explanations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT9bit2-1pg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT9bit2-1pg

istjohn 6y ago

>...we end up in the vicious cycle of poverty, crime, imprisonment, broken families and even more kids going through the same thing. Poverty. That's the root issue. But it's cheaper to blame the poverty on bad additudes and poor choices rather than acknowledge the causality goes in the other direction and pony up the cash for programs to break the cycle of poverty.

loco5niner 6y ago
Poverty is the result, not the cause. Bad attitudes and poor choices lead to poverty in America, not the other way around.
logicchains 6y ago
Then home come the poor migrants from China, India, Mexico and even Africa who come to America end up doing so well?
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Not only is that a copout and demonstrably false, but giving people money makes poverty worse, not better. It’s counterintuitive, and unfortunately proponents of hand-outs act out of emotion and (naive) intuition, not data. They often harm those they intend to help as a result.