Menino In La-La Land
Undoubtedly refusing to admit that his gun buyback program was a total failure, Menino is denying how grave the crime situation in Boston is.
Despite a murder rate 60 percent higher than last year’s body count and bloodshed that continued to escalate with a shooting last night, Mayor Thomas M. Menino defiantly denied yesterday that Boston is in crisis, instead blaming the media for negative headlines.
“A lot of people want to believe it’s out of control. It’s not out of control,” Menino assured a packed house at Greater Love Tabernacle in the heart of Dorchester’s shooting gallery, where he was welcomed by thunderous applause.
“This city works. The problem is you’re always seeing headlines about the bad news. I wish we had a good news newspaper. The Good News of Boston. The bad guys don’t control this city, they only control the headlines.”
Already facing a major embarrassment over the initiative of the Guardian Angels to come to Boston to do the job Menino refuses to do, the least Menino could do is recognize he’s let Boston deteriorate into a crime-plagued city.
UPDATE: The Guardian Angels blog at the Boston Herald…
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
Shhhhh, noone is supposed to know…Boston is down 300 cops thanks to the R’s and D’s funding their buddies instead of local aid. That’s why noone brings up the “more cops” issue… and they try to divert our attention with the “pull up your pants” insanity. Notice how Tommy “the felon” Finneran never mentions the local aid issue? He got the money for the Biotech crowd, let everyone else eat cake or is it “Apres moi, le deluge!”
I wish that fat [CENSORED] would make up his mind. As recently as last year, it was:
“The city’s in crisis! We need our neighboring states to adopt MA-style gun laws! It’s all New Hampshire’s fault!”
But now, it’s:
“Everything’s fine. It’s the media’s fault for making people think the city’s in crisis.”
Linguistics experts call it “Bi-Rectal Mumblespeak”, when a politician talks out of both sides of his ass at once.
Notice that Mr. X never addresses union thuggery when he spews.
What about those fat lazy cops who go out “line of duty” and spend two years getting a masters degree so they can soak up the Quinn Bill gravy? We’re not “down” 300 cops. And even if we were down 300….do some math and find out why first. Most communities spend first, budget second. If the union didn’t hold the public hostage using “public safety” and “response time” rhetoric, the city would have more cops (even if they paid more into health care).
Or, lets try this X-meister……FLAG MEN. Then our poor down trodden flat foots won’t have to be so tired when they go on duty. Maybe if the cops got out of their cruisers once in a while and pounded the pavement, they’d know something about what is going on. Like I always say Mr. X…..we should get what we pay for.
V! You are obsessed with the demise of unions. Aren’t you satisfied that the percent of the work force unionized has decreased from over 40% in the 1950’s to about 12%? Truly you are seeking a union holocaust! If it’s the free market you desire, make sure you schedule the Federal Reserve Bank on your execution list. Check out The Communist Manifesto …Marx loved central banks.
Oh by the way, Boston is down 300 cops. Let’s see, does fewer cops means higher crime? Maybe we will have to ask some Harvardians since all knowledge resides in 02138 land. Good night V!
Mr. X,
When have I advocated for the demise of unions? I simply state the FACT that we should get what we pay for. And seriously, don’t you think your use of the term “holocaust” is a bit unfortunate?
I’d like to see how you figure Boston is “down 300 cops”. From what are they down? Did they used to have 300 more? Is the force population based? If so, do census numbers show that Boston should have 300 more? Also, I’d like to see the statistics on the correlation between cops and crime. Seems fishy to me that fewer cops mean more crime. I think it is more about effective management and placement than numbers.
Unions have nothing to do with how people raise (or don’t raise) their kids. It’s time we stopped blaming the cops for the increase in crime and start putting the blame where it lies.
Funny how you never refute my points with fact or logic.
According to Workplace Fairness.org, “The percentage of workers in the United States who belong to a union has decreased from a high of over 35% at the end of World War II to approximately 13% today. Although a higher percentage of government employees belong to unions, only approximately 9% of employees in the private sector are union members.”
There are reasons for this. First, unions negotiate extremely unbalanced agreements with federal, state and local agencies, often at the expense of the work that needs to be done and the poor people who pay (US). Second, private industry is in the business of being competetive and has to actually make money. You can’t do that if you hire 3 workers to do the job of two (you should see my photo collection of two union guys watching one union guy work).
What does the federal reserve bank have to do with this discussion?
V !
See today’s Herald and Mumbles request for more cops. If you don’t get my analogy about the FED…well go ask Wave or maybe MUFFY or anyone in the 02138 zip code. They love the Fed..protects Daddy’s capital!
Mr. X;
Again you answer none of my points. I read the Herald. I read it every day. I still see nowhere where it is clearly explained why Boston is “down 300″ cops. If you can point to a statistic that says “Boston should have 1 cop for every XXX population” and now there is .75 for the XXX population, I’ll buy it.
Also, like the teachers unions, more of the budget is now spent PER OFFICER than ever before. That directly translates to fewer police officers(and teachers in that case). This isn’t about revenue (money coming in). This is about expenditures (money going out). We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Unions need to realize that to remain viable, the pinkie rings have to give back a bit.
Case in point…..a local fire department used to have firefighters responsible for the alarm boxes. Union negotiations eliminated this from their role. Now, another union town department has to deal with the boxes. No increase in budget or personnel. That means, fewer workers doing more work in that department (which we ALL KNOW in union-ville means it doesn’t get done); while the firefighters make more and do less.
Face it…..Boston does not need more cops. The money can be better spent elsewhere. Boston needs to have the cops it has better trained, motivated and WORKING.
Once again V, I direct you to the Herald (4/7) as more cops are added…Knock, Knock! Hello V, anyone home? How’s it feel to be batting .000? But then again, THE MAGNIFICENT MR. X is pitching! Have a nice day, rookie!