This show highlights the failures of his entire ideology and culture.
The argument this show is making is the antithesis of liberalism. It's effectively a damning of liberalism left unchecked.
It's Baltimore. But it could be Detroit. Or St. Louis. Or Chicago.
The corruption and massive failed bureaucracy is the basic theme of the show. It boggles the mind that Obama could say this show is his favorite, or that any liberal could enjoy it.
Given that many people in this show are in the trouble they find themselves in because of "tough on crime" BS that never comes close to tackling the root of said crime, I don't know how this show could be considered a condemnation of liberalism.
If anything, it advocates greater understanding and early prevention.
--- It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
The show is just proof that the war on drugs needs a total new direction. A major failure of the war on drugs is throwing thousands of people in prison for buying drugs. It overloads the prisons and the violent criminals get out WAY too early due to overcrowding.
Drug addicts should be put into treatment programs and not thrown in with violent criminals they are helping get out early. Also, giving people criminal records for buying drugs really hurts their ability to get a job which keeps them in poverty and leads to a life of crime. Putting them in prison also hurts the country financially as well. Treatments programs are supposed to be cheaper and much more effective than throwing them in prison.
New Jersey is trying to put people into treatment programs.
"The state (NJ) spends $42,000 to house one inmate for a year. Drug courts, which are in all 21 counties, cost $11,300 per inmate."
I am a conservative and I agree the show highlights the failure of liberals and democrats. It also highlights the failures of the country as well. Republicans also have to find better solutions and not just liberals.
Let me know when either party starts looking for alternatives. The push for more private jails, and might I add, by conservatives, does not lend itself to treatment vs prison. How will people make money if they can't lock people up?
The show gives insight into America's ethnic underclass (blacks) and shows how they fail or under-perform in various ways. Their neighborhood is poor and crime ridden, their families are broken and they fail at education.
It shows how the war on drugs seems to exacerbate their problems. The most psychopathic members of their group are able to become wealthy because of it, and the violence they use terrorize the neighborhood. Also, the violent crime overwhelms the police and civil services partly because fighting the drug trade consumes so many resources.
You can see how legalizing drugs would reduce many problems and make them more manageable, but certainly not make them go away.
Libertarian and left-wing liberals would probably agree that the war on drugs creates more problems than it solves. Libertarians would also argue against it from a moral perspective.
A hard left-winger, or cultural marxist, who believes that the black population's plight is because of discrimination (oppression) by whites, would not be able to find such a message in The Wire.
A hard left-winger, or cultural marxist, who believes that the black population's plight is because of discrimination (oppression) by whites, would not be able to find such a message in The Wire.
Ever heard of the term "White flight?" I don't know if the specific term is ever brought up in the show, but its meaning is referenced, at least once, by I think Carcetti.
White flight refers to white people moving out of the city once black people started moving in, thus removing a large chunk of the city's tax base. Less tax revenue means smaller school and police budgets, along with other social services. This is clearly an issue in the show.
You certainly would not argue that white flight is not because of discrimination against blacks, right?
reply share
Not sure what you mean. White flight is voluntary racial and social segregation. The whites leave an undesirable area because they can afford to. I don't think it can be called discrimination.
If you put it that way, I guess it can be called racism, or discrimination.
But since you are talking about white flight as if it is a problem, then you must agree that the city becomes a worse place to live after the white people leave (or flee). In turn, this means that having a black population makes a city a worse place to live in than one with a white or mixed population.
So from the white people's perspective, it makes sense to leave the city right after black people start moving in. After all, the place is only going to get worse, and the last ones to leave will have to accept lower prices for their properties when they leave.
So a rational decision can easily be framed as discrimination, even though no harm is being done.
But since you are talking about white flight as if it is a problem, then you must agree that the city becomes a worse place to live after the white people leave (or flee). In turn, this means that having a black population makes a city a worse place to live in than one with a white or mixed population.
No, the city becomes a worse place to live when the tax base leaves, thus depriving the city of funds for schools, better trained police forces, social services, etc.
reply share
Well, the effect is the same. If the black people pay less taxes, then the city will be worse after they move in. The same would happen if a lot of unemployed people moved in.
So it can be hard to separate racism and more rational economic decisions if the economic problems are also associated with a certain ethnic group. White flight is a mixture of the two.
But why not turn this around and call it "black smooching" or something similar? Right now this phenomenon is also seen in the Mediterranean where a lot of black people are trying to make it to Europe.
Yes white flight did happen in Baltimore, and many other major cities. Yes white people did not want to be around black people. THAT was also long time ago too. Baltimore does have a mass majority black population, but there are white people that do live in the city. Also people wanted to live out in the suburbs for more space. You do not have space living in cities. You have a tiny apartment and no land, people wanted to actually have houses and land and grass and raise families. So it is a combination of things.
White people, unless junkies or addicts, are NOT going to live in such black neighborhoods shown in The Wire. That is a fact. I have driven around those neighborhoods and I have worked in such locations where it was a running joke that murders happened here, and the bodies were dumped 15 minutes away. You think many white people live in southside Chicago the murder capital of the US? Absolutely not. Why because it is self explanatory. Why on earth would a white person want to live there???? Why on earth would anyone want to live in locations where the crime rate and murder rate is sky high. That is what you will get in major cities. NO ONE is doing a thing to change any of it and no the tax base will NOT return until there is a show of wanting to improve and clean up those neighborhoods.
Baltimoreans and those in the county have seen how things change when the demographic changes.
cultural marxist, who believes that the black population's plight is because of discrimination (oppression) by whites,
Racism like that has nothing to do with Marx. Marx believed that the capitalist class is oppressive, not whites. Systematic racism against whites (along with systematic sexism against men) of the kind you've cited is a much more recent invention that was fabricated by evil feminists. They try to coopt Marx's name, yet Marx didn't and wouldn't support their modern evils. To call them "marxists" is a grave disparaging of Marx's name and also implies that they have credibility which they don't actually have.
reply share
Well, I think it's fitting, because they have just exchanged one imagined oppressor/victim relationship for another. I also don't think Marx has much credibility, his economic theory about inherent value was certainly wrong and no-one uses it today.
You can see how legalizing drugs would reduce many problems and make them more manageable,
Except that prescription drugs ARE legal and they are abused to no end and addictions are high with them. Legalizing alcohol didn't exactly make things better. Seeing what happens on a TV show cannot be applied to real life.
Legalizing things such as drugs or alcohol does not improve things at all. It just makes them legal. Everything is all nice and groovy on paper. Reality will paint a different story. Things eventually get out of control.
((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))
reply share