Why are people in New Orleans (and Louisiana in general) so tolerant of murder?
Holographe
Louisiana has the highest rate of murder in America, of any of the 50 states:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/lacrime.htm
And New Orleans is the most murderous big city in the entire country, with a third-world murder rate that should make all of its residents absolutely ashamed:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/new_orleans_has_highest_crime.html
Why do people in Louisiana (and New Orleans in particular) even tolerate this? Why not just crack down on crime?
What is Governor Bobby Jindal doing about this?
What is Mayor Ray Nagin doing about this?
Come on, Louisiana - stop making America look so third-world. Can you at least turn these rates around for us by next year? Please?
Answer
Almost 98% of the murders in New Orleans are directly related to drug trafficking, and primarily to crack cocaine.
The problem is now and has been for decades the link between city government - more than just the mayor & city council - and drug trafficking.
Drug criminals have been an essential part of the New Orleans political establishment for over 20 years, and their influence on politicians has been such that every effective anti-drug law enforcement program has been stopped asap by the city's administration. That included even programs paid for via federal or state grants with requirements the programs be operated for X years.
On a more individual level, the part of New Orleans society that directly harbors the drug customers & street-level dealers (who are the ones being killed) has historically lived in public housing/section 8 type neighborhoods. They DON'T WANT the law enforced in their neighborhoods because they are making a living from drug dealing either directly or through their friends & relatives. They do want the police around but ONLY to "stop the violence". In other words, they want the police to create a safe workplace for drug dealers, which is impossible.
However, the size of the public housing population meant it's leaders (through telling people how to vote) could swing most local elections (for mayor, city council, district attorney, etc.) and that meant local government interference in the drug business = someone else winning the next election. Yes, that meant even less-scrupulous people than is normal (for politicians) were elected to office - it isn't just the lack of altitude.
The problem is complicated by the fact there are also indirect influences from the drug trade. For example, how many fewer luxury cars would be sold if the drug trade was suppressed? Same with luxury homes, jewelry, and other status symbols. The drug trade is a business with a structure & hierarchy like any large corporation and middle to upper management is paid well. Over time, many parts of New Orleans' society began to think that benefiting from the profits of drug trafficking was normal. The murders are simply a sign of the societyâs and governmentâs willful inability to stop the violence.
Any criticism of city government over the issue has resulted in the silencing of the critic by shrieks of "racism" (if the critic is not Black) and "Uncle Tom-ism" (if the critic is Black). It has worked for decades, and you may get similar accusations in response to your question. That is also why Jindal and previous Governors have left the city to whatever happens â few politicians can withstand the threat of being labeled a racist. Only George Bush had the intestinal fortitude to do something about it and multiple federal investigations (starting before Katrina) have sent numerous local politicians to jail for corruption. Nagin is currently under investigation for corruption. Those investigations continue, and we shall see if the Obama administration ends them.
The good news is that Katrina radically changed the political landscape of New Orleans. The huge "vote how you are told" public housing/section 8 population is about 75% gone, which means the ability of their "leadership" to swing elections is also gone.
The changes since 2005 in city government are very visible, with most of the city council being replaced, a new DA, and so on - down to the school board.
However, Nagin is still mayor and he owes a significant part of his re-election in 2006 to the old system, which was able to deliver the win via the extraordinary measures taken to allow evacuees in other places to cast their votes (and to vote how they were told). Even then, Landrieu would have won if misguided Republicans had not voted against him by voting for Nagin.
The elections of 2010 should continue the positive changes we saw from the 2008 elections.
It will still take time before having a more honest city government results in a lower murder rate.
New Orleans is not alone in the situation, and cities like Detroit & Baltimore are having the same problems for the same reasons. For good or bad, cities like Detroit & Baltimore have not had a Katrina to break the symbiotic and unholy relationship between drug trafficking and local government.
Fear for them.
Wish us well.
Almost 98% of the murders in New Orleans are directly related to drug trafficking, and primarily to crack cocaine.
The problem is now and has been for decades the link between city government - more than just the mayor & city council - and drug trafficking.
Drug criminals have been an essential part of the New Orleans political establishment for over 20 years, and their influence on politicians has been such that every effective anti-drug law enforcement program has been stopped asap by the city's administration. That included even programs paid for via federal or state grants with requirements the programs be operated for X years.
On a more individual level, the part of New Orleans society that directly harbors the drug customers & street-level dealers (who are the ones being killed) has historically lived in public housing/section 8 type neighborhoods. They DON'T WANT the law enforced in their neighborhoods because they are making a living from drug dealing either directly or through their friends & relatives. They do want the police around but ONLY to "stop the violence". In other words, they want the police to create a safe workplace for drug dealers, which is impossible.
However, the size of the public housing population meant it's leaders (through telling people how to vote) could swing most local elections (for mayor, city council, district attorney, etc.) and that meant local government interference in the drug business = someone else winning the next election. Yes, that meant even less-scrupulous people than is normal (for politicians) were elected to office - it isn't just the lack of altitude.
The problem is complicated by the fact there are also indirect influences from the drug trade. For example, how many fewer luxury cars would be sold if the drug trade was suppressed? Same with luxury homes, jewelry, and other status symbols. The drug trade is a business with a structure & hierarchy like any large corporation and middle to upper management is paid well. Over time, many parts of New Orleans' society began to think that benefiting from the profits of drug trafficking was normal. The murders are simply a sign of the societyâs and governmentâs willful inability to stop the violence.
Any criticism of city government over the issue has resulted in the silencing of the critic by shrieks of "racism" (if the critic is not Black) and "Uncle Tom-ism" (if the critic is Black). It has worked for decades, and you may get similar accusations in response to your question. That is also why Jindal and previous Governors have left the city to whatever happens â few politicians can withstand the threat of being labeled a racist. Only George Bush had the intestinal fortitude to do something about it and multiple federal investigations (starting before Katrina) have sent numerous local politicians to jail for corruption. Nagin is currently under investigation for corruption. Those investigations continue, and we shall see if the Obama administration ends them.
The good news is that Katrina radically changed the political landscape of New Orleans. The huge "vote how you are told" public housing/section 8 population is about 75% gone, which means the ability of their "leadership" to swing elections is also gone.
The changes since 2005 in city government are very visible, with most of the city council being replaced, a new DA, and so on - down to the school board.
However, Nagin is still mayor and he owes a significant part of his re-election in 2006 to the old system, which was able to deliver the win via the extraordinary measures taken to allow evacuees in other places to cast their votes (and to vote how they were told). Even then, Landrieu would have won if misguided Republicans had not voted against him by voting for Nagin.
The elections of 2010 should continue the positive changes we saw from the 2008 elections.
It will still take time before having a more honest city government results in a lower murder rate.
New Orleans is not alone in the situation, and cities like Detroit & Baltimore are having the same problems for the same reasons. For good or bad, cities like Detroit & Baltimore have not had a Katrina to break the symbiotic and unholy relationship between drug trafficking and local government.
Fear for them.
Wish us well.
Car Leases, a good option, Yes or No?
acvader
I need people's opinions on car leases. I live in the city and I occasionally need a car for work (like 2 or 3 times a week). I like driving but I like getting around without one also. I think a lease would be a good option for me since I don't necessarily depend on a car.
I've heard a lot of different things about leases, some good, some bad. I want people to share their experiences with them. Key word experiences. I would prefer answers from people who have experience with car leases.
One thing in particular that worries me about leases is the insurance. I've heard that people get hit with a lot more insurance costs when they lease. Is this true?
Answer
Leasing is great if you know how many miles per year you will be driving and you like to have a new car evey 3 or 4 years. Example: I lease a 2006 Cadillac CTS 3.6, my lease payments are $345 a month and I came up with only the first payment when I signed the lease. Had I purchased, my payments with tax title and license rolled in with only a $345 down payment would be about $630. Total price would have been about $32,000 with taxes and everything rolled in. This is a 12k miles 39 month lease. Had I purchased the car after 39 months and I traded the car to a dealership, which is what most people do, I could expect to get maybe $16,500 trade in value for the car with 39k miles on it. These figures are based on KBB trade in in excellent condition.
So I'd have made $24,570 worth of payments at 6.9% and have a pay-off of about $13,500. Net dollars spent on purchase $21,570. Net payments via lease $13,455. Gee, what do I do? By leasing I save over $8,000. Works for me.
Now this does not work for everyone. If you arent honest with yourself about your mileage and you go over the allowed mileage you will owe some big money at the end of the lease, my contract says 25 cents per mile over. My car is somewhat of a luxury and I am not totally concerned with value and as we all know, cars depreciate. I like having a new car every 3 years and I like nice cars. If I were concerned totally about the money I'd buy a honda Civic and keep it for 6 years, but I hate Honda Civics and would rather spend the same money monthly for a Cadillac Cts via lease than purchase a 2 door manual tranmission Honda Civic. $345 a month equals financing about $17,000 at %6.9.
Do the math. My insurance is $110 month on my Cadillac but I live in New Orleans and have a perfect driving record. Hope this helps you.
I love how everybody thinks leasing is a rip off. Its not. It works for certain people and not others. Who cares if you dont own it? Why would you want to? In 5 years it wont be worth much anyways. You do NOT have to purchase the car at the end of the lease. Depending on the leasing company you may not have to put up a security deposit or a down payment. I know I will always have a car payment becasue I like to have a new car all the time so why would I want a higher payment via purchsase when lease payments can be so low. You have to find the right deal, manufacturers have certain lease programs at certain times where they boost the residual or give youextra low interest rate. Check it out.
Leasing is great if you know how many miles per year you will be driving and you like to have a new car evey 3 or 4 years. Example: I lease a 2006 Cadillac CTS 3.6, my lease payments are $345 a month and I came up with only the first payment when I signed the lease. Had I purchased, my payments with tax title and license rolled in with only a $345 down payment would be about $630. Total price would have been about $32,000 with taxes and everything rolled in. This is a 12k miles 39 month lease. Had I purchased the car after 39 months and I traded the car to a dealership, which is what most people do, I could expect to get maybe $16,500 trade in value for the car with 39k miles on it. These figures are based on KBB trade in in excellent condition.
So I'd have made $24,570 worth of payments at 6.9% and have a pay-off of about $13,500. Net dollars spent on purchase $21,570. Net payments via lease $13,455. Gee, what do I do? By leasing I save over $8,000. Works for me.
Now this does not work for everyone. If you arent honest with yourself about your mileage and you go over the allowed mileage you will owe some big money at the end of the lease, my contract says 25 cents per mile over. My car is somewhat of a luxury and I am not totally concerned with value and as we all know, cars depreciate. I like having a new car every 3 years and I like nice cars. If I were concerned totally about the money I'd buy a honda Civic and keep it for 6 years, but I hate Honda Civics and would rather spend the same money monthly for a Cadillac Cts via lease than purchase a 2 door manual tranmission Honda Civic. $345 a month equals financing about $17,000 at %6.9.
Do the math. My insurance is $110 month on my Cadillac but I live in New Orleans and have a perfect driving record. Hope this helps you.
I love how everybody thinks leasing is a rip off. Its not. It works for certain people and not others. Who cares if you dont own it? Why would you want to? In 5 years it wont be worth much anyways. You do NOT have to purchase the car at the end of the lease. Depending on the leasing company you may not have to put up a security deposit or a down payment. I know I will always have a car payment becasue I like to have a new car all the time so why would I want a higher payment via purchsase when lease payments can be so low. You have to find the right deal, manufacturers have certain lease programs at certain times where they boost the residual or give youextra low interest rate. Check it out.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
0 comments:
Post a Comment