• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baltimore

A word that may or may not have racist connotations was not the reason Baltimore burned to the ground.

So what. It was one question, asked of a press secretary? What's the issue? Were other questions not asked because this one was?

Why did Baltimore burn to the ground? Has anyone figured that out?
 
Sure. Anything to distract from the real issue and troll for "controversy."

Everything devolves into petty political and semantic bickering eventually, but there are some speed records being set lately.

You've got contacts in the Grand Society of Political Correctness. Tell them to cut this shirt out.
 
So what. It was one question, asked of a press secretary? What's the issue? Were other questions not asked because this one was?

Why did Baltimore burn to the ground? Has anyone figured that out?

Because a bunch of thugs set it on fire?
 
When I hear folks like Obama and Clinton tell us about all the problems in places like Baltimore, it almost makes you wish they had help prominent, public offices, where they might be able to influence public policy.
 
I would say burning and looting a liquor store is thuggish behavior. But some people go crazy in certain situations like that.
 
When I hear folks like Obama and Clinton tell us about all the problems in places like Baltimore, it almost makes you wish they had help prominent, public offices, where they might be able to influence public policy.

One-party rule in such places is a total coincidence.
 
I would say burning and looting a liquor store is thuggish behavior. But some people go crazy in certain situations like that.

Liquor stores were prime looting.

Some people had to settle for Pringles and tea:

 
"Over incarceration" may well be a problem, but the cure might be worse than the disease.

What's the proposal here? Don't arrest them? Don't hold them?

Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts.

Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities.

One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.

When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we're talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers.

They're not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound.

Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty.

And it's not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment.

And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison.


Read The Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Prison Reform Speech

For minor drug crimes, ticket them and move on.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top