Comments by dogsnsand

Previous | Page 2 of 5 | Next

Posted on May 16 at 2:05 p.m.

Insert any of these terms for 'illegal drug sales' in your argument:
human trafficking
arms sales

These are ALSO gang activities. Are you going to argue for them to be legal next?

Drugs are illegal because they're harmful. You've fallen into the trap of thinking they're harmful because they're illegal.

On 'Mr. X' Casts Large Shadow in Gang Injunction Trial

Posted on May 16 at 9:33 a.m.

I am always stunned at the insular mindset of the locals here. You're presented with the fact that la Eme is operating in your area, that they ordered local gangs to lay low until the threat of the injunction passes, after which they can go on a crime spree to make up for lost time...and here's your response:

Legalize drugs!
Throw out draconian laws!
I just don't like the injunction...

You guys are la Eme's dream. A bunch of yokels completely oblivious to the larger terrain they are standing on, who have zero idea how their whacked views contribute to gang proliferation.

On 'Mr. X' Casts Large Shadow in Gang Injunction Trial

Posted on May 15 at 2:49 p.m.

This article highlights some really important things: 1. Cartels are controlling the turf-war gangs here. 2. The gangs have cooled their jets under orders from the Eme. The anti-injunction set uses declining gang crime as one of their arguments to not go through with the injunction. Had they gotten their way, this was exactly what the Eme wanted, and that calls for some scrutiny of some of the characters against the injunction. Is it really about 'not targeting our youth', or were they doing the Eme's bidding? Hmmm. Macias' case is particularly interesting, given he was the #2 in Palabra, who started the agitation movement against the injunction.

It's only on the Indy that you could find a character like Loonpt whose only takeaway was to conclude that it fits his theory that we should legalize drugs. That's how you stop gangs. Right. They're already into trafficking and other illicit activities, as posters point out. You gonna' legalize those too?

On 'Mr. X' Casts Large Shadow in Gang Injunction Trial

Posted on May 14 at 8:38 p.m.

So the Volok / Netman argument is this:
Education Is Good. Teachers are Heroic. Therefore, never question funding.

And that's how we got to this sad state of affairs where California kids can not afford access to their own state universities. You guys are dying on the sword of ideology, and missing what's going on here. There's no question education is valuable, teachers do great work, etc. The problem is that universities have no incentive to control costs, and have raised tuitions to cover their bloated budgets so as to now become unaffordable. Das' answer is terrible: just subsidize them even more!

That class thing you so fear, where the elitists privatize do you miss what's happening in front of you? Pat Brown wanted to provide an Ivy League education free to any California kid that wanted it. And some of the UC's are ranked up there with the Ivy League schools now, which is awesome.

Too bad most California kids can't afford to go to their own schools, because they've been outpriced by the foreign kids that can pay out-of-state rates. Their only option is to take on massive debt and be saddled for life, assuming they can get in.

How do you not see that this is a really poor outcome?

On Reinvest in Higher Education

Posted on May 14 at 8:37 a.m.

It's too bad Das has so few ideas on how to fix the problem of affordability in California public universities. The student loan bubble produced the spike in tuition. Universities (across the US, but exorbitantly in CA) raised fees because student loans were granted freely, regardless of ability to pay back the loan or usefulness of degree. When that market tightens up, only degrees that produce well-paying jobs will likely be financed through loans. That will dry up demand for the basket-weaving degrees. So the answer to these spikes in tuition isn't to raise more taxes to further subsidize these schools. If they were forced to cut costs, they could, easily. There's a lot of fluff in their budgets to eliminate. Do they really need forced diversity classes and diversity administrators at each school, pulling down $200K+ annual salaries? The UC's have gotten notoriously administration-heavy, with departments creating little fiefdoms at huge expense. If people are unwilling or unable to pay their steep prices, expect the fluff programs to be cut first. That's the sensible way.

On Reinvest in Higher Education

Posted on May 5 at 6:38 p.m.

How nice, the homies are protesting the gang injunction...

On Man Arrested Outside Gang Hearing

Posted on April 28 at 8:38 a.m.

Loko was removed from the injunction because he was convicted of killing Robert Simpson at Hendry's. He was sentenced to 60 years to life. "Lonely Boy" was convicted in the 2009 slaying of Leal on De La Vina.

On City Drops 16 More Defendants from Gang Injunction

Posted on April 25 at 6:36 p.m.

"Psycho" Mike was dropped off the injunction because he recently got life in prison for murdering George Ied.

On City Drops 16 More Defendants from Gang Injunction

Posted on April 17 at 11:43 a.m.

Remission does not = cure. anemonefish and lawdy are right - congratulations and cries of "Mission Accomplished - down with the injunction!" are very premature. This is the cycle: gang activity escalates, results in serious violence or murder, followed by public outrage, followed by police crackdown...then gangs quiet down for a little while. Gangs are not gone. They're just in remission. They start cranking back around the start of summer. Then it's back into the cycle of escalation, public outrage, etc. Don't mistake a lull for eradication. They're not the same thing.

One thing the anti-injunction set never acknowledges is this: Simpson's and Ied's murders in 2010 ignited public outrage that propelled the gang injunction forward. After it was announced in Feb 2011, gang activity started immediately decreasing. Why? Because the filing of the injunction showed gangs the City was serious. Maybe this injunction is past the sell-by date, but withdrawing it doesn't free $500k for prevention, the way John_Adams Murillo likes to perpetuate. That money is city staff salaries: attorneys, police - they will still be in their jobs, still getting those salaries, no matter what they work on. Withdrawing the injunction does not suddenly free up money for prevention programs.

The injunction was for older, hardcore gang members, not Jr. High kids. There's no after school prevention programs for the older hard core set. The anti-injunction set would be more persuasive if they got their facts right, and moved out of political advocacy and into real hands-on prevention and intervention. There's scarce little of the latter going on now, and it would be more useful than all the money they're spending agitating against the injunction.

On From the Mouths of Dogs

Posted on March 20 at noon

Right on, Frank, and thank you for speaking out for many neighbors who dare not come to public meetings, where their faces will be seen and published. And who's watching them? That would be the homies in the hood they have to return to. The ones who'll slash their tires and bust in their windows for speaking up. No we're not like La Coloniia, but why do we have to get like that before acting? The gang crime rate did drop after the injunction was filed, which is possibly THE most important data point in this whole discussion. When the city got serious, it quelled activity. But even so, a stabbing on State during the SBIFF, a shooting on the Eastside last year, and, the stabbings on Cottage Grove prove that though they went a little more underground, gangs are far from under control in this town. Bring on the injunction!

On Why I Support the Civil Gang Injunction

Previous | Page 2 of 5 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: