Public housing

There’s been some neighborhood goings-on about the public housing building.

The building is surrounded by a fence because it makes it easy for police to catch criminals. No one is allowed to admit it, but most of the crime in the neighborhood is run out of the public housing building. Before the fence, it was easy for criminals to commit a crime and sneak back into the public housing. After the fence was put up, cops just waited for crimes to be reported and then immediately went to the entrances in the fence. Criminals would show up and get arrested. Crime fell dramatically.

Of course, in my ideal world, the people that live in the housing building would have to work. Any sort of work would do. Instead, modern policies require them to be idle if they want to stay on public assistance – efficiency does go up though, since the housing building is filled with the world’s least efficient people. As a result, the public housing becomes a magnet for drugs, prostitution, and random violence. This process is known as "progress."


7 Responses to Public housing

  1. Handle says:

    So, what you’re saying, is that it’s no different from a border fence then?

  2. B says:

    >Besides being a safety issue–the women also liked the fact that their kids could wander around without ending up in the street–DCHA family commissioner Aquarius Vann-Ghasri, also a Gardens resident, mounted a passionate sociological critique. Why should this fence be perceived as a prison, when fences around wealthy neighborhoods are called “gated communities”? “When I enter my gated community, I feel like Sheba,” Vann-Ghasri said

    Reading this paragraph made me feel sort of dizzy and anoxically high, like I had just huffed some glue or gasoline. The invisible wall between dimensions has just buckled and is stretching, full with a terrible dark promise.

  3. asdf says:

    this video has been blazing its way across the genetics/hbd blogosphere

    lot of links/reactions here from left/right/HBD blogs and others

    foseti, what is the deal with this guy shuren from a fedguv perspective? is this kind of thing fairly common, or a firing offense, or sort of both (in that it happens all the time, but packaged in the right way on videotape is a firing offense?)

    • Foseti says:

      Lying to Congress under oath is not fairly common. Frankly, it’s very rare for someone to make such strong and unequivocal statements under oath and in front of Congress.

      In this case, which is not about a topic that Congress or the mainstream press really care about, I suspect that nothing much will come of it. Even if non-mainstream sources manage to make a big deal out of this, I suspect Shuren could let it blow over by “clarifying” his statement.

      • asdf says:

        Interesting. So just going to the CSPAN tape and looking for outright statements of fact while under oath could alone turn up some interesting things.

      • Foseti says:

        Probably, though if the witnesses are competent, there won’t be many statements of fact to find.

  4. dearieme says:

    Waxman is verbose – his question could have been asked in ten words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: