Friday, September 4, 2015
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
It’s a given in American politics that urban centers are essentially Democrat strongholds. There is no point in Republicans or conservatives competing there because you’re simply not going to gain any votes or find any agreement on key policy points. This can be attributed to both economic and demographic factors. The low income urban communities are predominantly composed of minority voters and they stand with the Democrats in numbers which are too daunting to contemplate. The majority of the wealthy tend toward the limosene liberal crowd who can afford destructive taxes and have the leisure time available to dictate proper life choices to others no matter how they live their own lives. (Be sure to take a limo or a private jet to your next climate change conference.)
But is this changing? Joel Kotkin at Real Clear Politics looks at the numbers and finds that while urban population centers are still large, they are not growing in relation to the exurbs and rural areas, and they’re also not turning out to vote in the same numbers as they did in the heyday of the Democrats.
This urban economy has created many of the most unequal places in the country. At the top are the rich and super-affluent who have rediscovered the blessings of urbanity, followed by a large cadre of young and middle-aged professionals, many of them childless. Often ignored, except after sensationalized police shootings, is a vast impoverished class that has become ever-more concentrated in particular neighborhoods. During the first decade of the current millennium, neighborhoods with entrenchedurban poverty actually grew, increasing in numbers from 1,100 to 3,100. In population, they grew from 2 million to 4 million.Some 80 percent of all population growth in American cities, since 2000, notes demographerWendell Cox, came from these poorer people, many of them recent immigrants.Such social imbalances are not, as is the favored term among the trendy, sustainable. We appear to be creating the conditions for a new wave of violent crime on a scale not seen since the early 1990s. Along with poverty,public disorderliness, gang activity, homelessness and homicides are on the rise in many American core cities, including Baltimore, Milwaukee, Los Angeles and New York. Racial tensions, particularly with the police, have worsened. So even as left-leaning politicians try to rein in police, recent IRS data in Chicago reveals, the middle class appears to once again be leaving for suburban and other locales.
When Democrats begin looking at these types of numbers in a serious fashion they must be asking a question which conservatives have been pondering for some time. Who has been running things in the cities for decades now? The Democrats. And how’s that working out for you? Crime rates in the cities have been – and remain – epic. You can try to blame vast social conflict on the police if you like, but the fact is that the police go where the crime is. The social infrastructure in so many large cities has simply collapsed and it’s all taken place on the watch of the liberal Democrats who rule the roost. They whip up their voters into a frenzy every election cycle, warning of the dangers of the Republicans who hold no power over their lives, but it is under their leadership that you saw the current mess develop.
On the upper end of the scale, particularly in places like New York City, there is a jarring contrast which is hard for the Democrat base to ignore. How do you talk about income inequality and the evils of the fat cats when it’s those same fat cats financing the election of the same Democrats over and over again? Isn’t there a bit of a disconnect there?
Looking at the numbers in that article I have have to wonder if Barack Obama – by virtue of being able to generate racial empathy – might be the last Democrat who will turn out large numbers of voters in the cities. What does Hillary have to offer them which is any different than the policies which have seen New York’s murder rate skyrocket once again and Baltimore going up in flames?
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Thursday, February 27, 2014
A disturbing report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel alleges that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has lost "dozens" of weapons as agents leave them in bathrooms, on top of cars, movie theaters, and other public areas.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Chicago teachers’ strike is an awkward dinner conversation between President Barack Obama and his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Many of the policy prescriptions in the new Chicago teachers’ contract designed to create more accountability are supported by the Obama administration.
As the Chicago teachers’ strike continues, we’ve learned that they make $71-76,000 a year and they turned down a 16% pay increase, which amounts to $11,360. They work nine months out of the year, but say that this strike is benefits oriented. However, given that ABC World News didn’t even air this story last Sunday and most of the media, with the exception of CBS, failing to mention the compensation statistics in their broadcast – suffice to say that the media will probably ignore the fact that almost 40% of Chicago’s public school teachers send their kids to private schools.
I’m not against public education, but the fact that these teachers make enough to send their kids to private schools shows that Chicago’s public teachers are aware of the serial failure within the system. Second, it shows that these teachers have zero confidence in their own respective school district. Why are the teachers going on strike? Aren’t the contentious measures they’re squabbling about aimed at enhancing accountability that will make their institutions of learning better for the students? It appears this strike, like most union strikes, are defined by these three words: give. me. more.
However, given the state of public education and that of Chicago, it’s not alien for public school teachers to ship their kids to private institutions. According to The Washington Times in September of 2004, they quoted the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which found that:
Via: Hot AirMore than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.
The conventional wisdom is that Wednesday night’s presidential debate is a huge opportunity for Republican nominee Mitt Romney. The empe...
Reid Wilson shares a map from National Media, a Republican ad-buying firm, depicting a recent television event: “Using data from Rentrak, ...
July 25, 2015 / by Tom Meyer / 0 Comment The 2016 presidential election is underway, and you know what that means: editors hastil...
NEW YORK (MYFOXNY) - Some are describing this as "America's anger epidemic." And there are a few reasons: uncertainty in the ...
The Santa Monica Mountains are home to nearly 400 species of birds, more than 50 threatened or endangered plants and animals, and seven ...
President Barack Obama’s push to unilaterally commit the United States to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years is abo...
AND THE PLANIS WORKING S WELL A YOU CONTINUE TO BLED VIEWERS TO REAL NEWS SOURCES (FOX) In an interview on “Larry King Now,” MSNBC’s C...
In an interview with the Huffington Post , MSNBC president Phil Griffin tries to push back against the notion that his channel has become...
PUT ALL THE LAZY "POS" THAT DON'T WANT TO WORK EARN THEIR FREE THINGS AND MAKE THEM BUILD THE HIGHWAYS OR THEY GET NOTHI...
It’s now a matter of bipartisan consensus that President Obama should have been more honest and forthright in selling his health-care plan....