THE Broken Windows Theory was developed by criminologists James Q Wilson and George Kelling in 1982, but was really popularised by Mayor Rudy Giuliani in his crime-fighting strategy as mayor of New York.
The principle behind the theory is that a broken window on an abandoned building, if not repaired leads to a vandalised door and then a destroyed house. This is a metaphorical comparison to crime and in plain English, it is saying that if small offences are allowed to go unpunished the offender moves up to greater offences.
Giuliani’s theory in actuality is that the same man who commits a minor offence, like jumping the subway gate to avoid payment is the same man who would commit an armed robbery later that night; so therefore lock him up for the subway jumping and he won’t be out there later to commit the greater offence.
This theory is also in effect saying that if you don’t prosecute minor offences you create an atmosphere of lawlessness that contributes to the committing of major crimes. This brings me to the Jamaican symbol of unpunished criminality and hooliganism — the robot taxi driver.
In describing this mob I will attempt to practise good journalism by hiding the venom I feel towards this group of thugs, who serve as the faces of Jamaica’s public disorder and mayhem.
The conduct of this group’s day to day activities on the road has assisted in bringing Jamaica to the equivalent of Dodge City, where lawlessness, indiscipline and plain thuggery was the order of the day.
Their unpunished actions create the springboard for criminals to believe that crime is unpunishable and any blasted thing goes.
Apart from reducing our roads to the equivalent of rally racetracks, they resist arrest in an almost organised, united, hooliganistic response; transport gunmen as a standard activity; rape; and recently have included abduction to their repertoire of sins.
This group needs to be targeted in a similar manner to that of organised crime is being destroyed in Spanish Town and western Jamaica, using large police teams with an array of non-lethal weaponry, because they are going to join together and resist every arrest, so batons and tasers will be needed to effect the required measures.
The cars they drive need to be crushed, not just seized, and the activity should be driven with an aim to destroy this group activity, not just suppress it.
You will find that the defeat of the robot taxi men and the end of their illegality will herald a new generation of public order that will impact crime and violence in far more ways than the untrained mind can imagine.
In the late 1970s to early 80s young males began appearing at the stoplights at the corner of Trafalgar Road and Hope Road, and there was much press activity as to the motivating factors that caused these young men to be, in effect, begging for 18 hours a day.
Where were their parents? Why weren’t they in school? What were the social conditions which caused this neglect? These were some questions asked and they encouraged public discussion.
This was followed by quite a few attempted solutions as time went on and the young males started to abuse women, commit robberies, fight and attack each other in plain sight, and become contributors to crime at the stoplights.
There was general acknowledgement that this, irrespective of the causative factors, could not be allowed to continue because they had become, at the very least, provoking and at most, quite dangerous.
Despite the acknowledgement of the risk caused by their presence, nothing was really ever done, and fast-forward three to four decades we now have them at every major intersection.
They are abjectly abusive, violent and what started out as begging is now borderline extortion, with many members of the public structuring their traffic commute to avoid these thugs.
This is in effect the Broken Window Theory.
This minor offence going unchecked mushroomed to greater criminal offences creating a theatre of public disorder and mayhem, and recently culminating in a showdown at the Hope Road and Barbican traffic lights, resulting in the injury of an innocent bystander by gunfire.
There has been much debate as to the circumstances leading up to the shooting and it is being investigated by competent authorities.
I don’t know what their findings will be, but what I do know is if that man was not allowed to practise his trade in extortion along with the other women abusers and cowards who are a permanent structure at that traffic light, the shooting would never have happened.
It represents an absolute failure of four decades of law enforcement and a scathing representation of the failing manhood of the Jamaican male that those thugs have been allowed to abuse our women and freely exercise hooliganism at our intersections.
The Giuliani approach to fighting crime represented a 56 per cent reduction in homicides and is one of the most successful crime reduction strategies in the history of crime fighting, comparative to only four other zones under study. Two are the city of Methuen in Columbia and Miami in the United States of America. Two others of note are St Andrew Southern and St Catherine Southern, both in Jamaica.
Yes. Despite common belief, there are parts of Jamaica where murders actually experienced a reduction — in specific areas under study, within a specified time frame. That, however, is an article in itself.
At this point, with one woman and three bullet holes, the time is right to correct the mistake of being unresponsive to this threat and finally to declare traffic lights a zone of no harassment-giving strength to the concept of Rudy Giuliani to present an appearance of a controlled society.
Fox’s Pete Hegseth Promoted Senate Candidate on Show After Being Paid By Michigan GOP
We don’t really need more evidence to know that Fox & Friends Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth is a Republican shill. After all, this is the guy who responded to the March for Our Lives by mocking teenage victims of gun violence and stating on-air that he had donated to the National Rifle Association in the wake of Parkland school massacre.
Now, Media Matters for America is reporting that last May, the Livingston County Republican Committee in Michigan paid him over $10,000 to be a keynote speaker at a Lincoln Day Dinner featuring GOP Senate candidate John James. Those payments were issued to Premiere Speakers Bureau, which represents Hegseth, over a period of five months this year, Media Matters for America said.
James, who was backed by President Donald Trump, lost to three-term Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in last month’s midterm elections. Before that election, Hegseth, who admits he’s not a journalist, hosted James on Fox & Friends Weekend four times in the lead-up to the campaign. And as the report points out, Hegseth did not disclose to his viewers that he had been paid by the GOP committee.
Per Media Matters for America:
-On September 9, Hegseth told James that his race is “one to watch, for sure, largely because of a strong candidacy you’re running.”
-On October 14, Hegseth told James that “whatever you’re doing is working, according to the polls, and I don’t always believe [polling].” Echoing the candidate’s own talking point, Hegseth later asked James: “What is the most important fresh perspective that is resonating with people in your state?”
-On October 28, Hegseth suggested that James was “closing the gap against his Democratic opponent,” telling him that his message “seems to be resonating in your race” based on “recent poll numbers in the Michigan Senate race” which showed James “trailing by, you know, seven points, which is a lot less than where you were, and if you consider the margin of error, it could even be closer than that.”
Other Fox employees also have used their high-visibility platform to shamelessly promote Trump and other Republicans. The most notorious recent example was an appearance by Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro alongside Trump at a campaign rally in Missouri in early November. Following that event, Fox issued a disingenuous statement claiming it “does not condone any talent participating in campaign events.” The network added that, “This was an unfortunate distraction and has been addressed.”
Media Matters for America also reported that Pirro has received over $200,000 in speaking fees from over a dozen GOP organizations in the past two years.
Fox did not respond to a request for comment by Media Matters for America. My guess is that they don’t have much to say.
Why Trump turned back to tough tariff talk
Auto tariffs were the big takeaway from this weekend’s meeting between President Trump and Chinese leaders. The aim was to de-escalate the trade war, but the real threat to American auto jobs isn’t Chinese tariffs on US-made cars. It’s Beijing’s plan to flood the US with cut-rate cars made with low-paid labor.
After the trade powwow, Trump advisers reported that China will drop or remove its punitive 40 percent tariff on autos imported from the US. Don’t pop the champagne corks: Removing Chinese tariffs on US autos will do almost nothing for our autoworkers.
The big three US automakers will tell you “we build where we sell.” They’ve moved operations to China, because the Asian giant is where the US was in 1925 in terms of car ownership, with plenty of first-time buyers. Ford reports, for example, that only 2 percent of its vehicles sold in China are made here.
Likewise, GM makes more cars in China than it does here, and the company sells more in China. The truth is that GM is more Chinese than it is American.
Back in the United States, the problem ahead is the coming wave of cheap Chinese-made cars. It’s a rerun of what Japan and South Korea did in the 1970s and ’80s. Their low-priced cars killed thousands of jobs in auto-producing states like Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.
Now five Chinese auto companies plan to sell in America within two years. Chinese auto workers make on average $11,000 a year, per Auto Express magazine.
No wonder Chinese negotiators say they want both sides to scrap all tariffs. It’s a trick. Fortunately, Trump doesn’t seem to be falling for it. “I’m a Tariff Man,” the president tweeted on Tuesday. He’s appointed a hard-line, pro-tariff US trade rep, Robert Lighthizer, to spearhead the Chinese negotiations.
It’s a sign Trump appreciates that tariffs are vital to staving off more disasters like the GM plant closings announced last month.
On Nov. 26, GM CEO Mary Barra blindsided the nation, announcing that the company is shuttering four US factories — including the Lordstown, Ohio, plant that makes the Chevy Cruze, and the iconic Detroit-Hamtramck plant that produces the Chevy Volt and other sedans.
The closings will lay off 3,300 production workers and 15 percent of GM’s white-collar workforce. Barra’s justification is that its sedans aren’t selling, and the closings are needed to “stay in front of a fast-changing market.” Investors agreed. GM stock soared.
Though longtime employees can move to other GM plants, many workers will end up in low-paying jobs or unemployed. In towns like Hamtramck, stores will be boarded up and rows of houses will be for sale.
In 2016, candidate Trump pledged to prevent such outcomes. Trumbull County, home of the Lordstown plant, went for Trump after giving President Barack Obama a 22-point margin in 2012.
Hearing GM’s grim announcement last week, Trump immediately called for tariffs. He pointed to the 25 percent tariff imposed on light trucks since 1964, which has guaranteed US dominance of the pickup and SUV markets ever since. “If we did that with cars coming in, many more cars would be built here,” the president tweeted, “and GM would not be closing their plants in Ohio, Michigan [and] Maryland.”
Trump also improved protections for US auto jobs when he renegotiated the trade pact with Mexico and Canada, announced last week. Pending congressional approval, the pact requires that at least 75 percent of a car’s value — meaning parts and labor — originate in North America for the car to be duty-free. That’s up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA.
The move will force companies that assemble in Mexico, like Nissan and Volkswagen, to use North American-made parts. To protect US wages, nearly half of all the parts will have to be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour — a jab at Mexico, which has some of the lowest auto wages in the world.
GM’s Barra is coming to Washington this week with mea culpas. But GM’s future as a company is largely in China and other new, foreign markets. Fortunately, Trump has American auto workers’ backs.
Mueller Exposes the Culture of Lying That Surrounds Trump
When Michael D. Cohen admitted this past week to lying to Congress about a Russian business deal, he said he had testified falsely out of loyalty to President Trump. When he admitted this summer to lying on campaign finance records about payments to cover up a sex scandal during the campaign, he said it was at Mr. Trump’s direction.
Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, former senior Trump campaign officials, lied to cover up financial fraud. George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide, lied in hopes of landing an administration job. And Michael T. Flynn, another adviser, lied about his interactions with a Russian official and about other matters for reasons that remain unclear.
If the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has proved anything in his 18-month-long investigation — besides how intensely Russia meddled in an American presidential election — it is that Mr. Trump surrounded himself throughout 2016 and early 2017 with people to whom lying seemed to be second nature.
They lied to federal authorities even when they had lawyers advising them, even when the risk of getting caught was high and even when the consequences for them were dire.
Even more Trump associates are under investigation for the same offense. They are part of a group of people surrounding Mr. Trump — including some White House and cabinet officials — who contribute to a culture of bending, if not outright breaking, the truth, and whose leading exemplar is Mr. Trump himself.
Mr. Trump looks for people who share his disregard for the truth and are willing to parrot him, “even if it’s a lie, even if they know it’s a lie, and even if he said the opposite the day before,” said Gwenda Blair, a Trump biographer. They must be “loyal to what he is saying right now,” she said, or he sees them as “a traitor.”
Campaign aides often echoed Mr. Trump’s pronouncements knowing they were false. People joined the top levels of his administration with the realization that they would be expected to embrace what Mr. Trump said, no matter how far from the truth or how much their reputations suffered.
For Sean Spicer, the first White House press secretary, that included falsely insisting, on Mr. Trump’s first day in office, that his inaugural crowd was the biggest in history. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who replaced him, dialed back once-daily news briefings to once every few weeks as her credibility was increasingly battered.
For decades, such behavior was relatively free of consequence for those who aligned with Mr. Trump. The stakes in the real estate world were lower, and deceptive statements could be dismissed as hardball business tactics or just efforts to cultivate the Trump mystique.
But in Mr. Mueller, those in Mr. Trump’s orbit now confront a big-league adversary with little tolerance for what one top White House adviser once called “alternative facts.” He leads a team of prosecutors and F.B.I. agents who are methodically and purposefully examining their words and deeds.
Mr. Trump’s own lawyers, wary of how frequently their client engages in falsehoods, are trying to hold the special counsel at bay. Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s lawyers, has already been forced to pull back his own public remarks about an issue of concern to Mr. Mueller.
In a confidential memo to the special counsel, Mr. Trump’s legal team admitted that the president, not his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., drafted a misleading statement about a Trump Tower meeting in 2016 between a Kremlin-tied lawyer and campaign officials. That statement could figure in the special counsel’s scrutiny of whether the president obstructed justice.
Fearful of more deceptions, the president’s legal team has insisted that Mr. Trump answer questions only in writing. They delivered replies to some of the special counsel’s queries on Nov. 20 after months of negotiation. If unsatisfied, Mr. Mueller could try to subpoena the president to testify.
But the new acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, a vocal critic of Mr. Mueller’s inquiry who now supervises it, would have to sign off. And even if he did, the White House could still mount a legal battle to quash it.
Many witnesses or subjects of the inquiry lack the president’s negotiating power or resources. Some have been stunned by their encounters with prosecutors, who arrive armed with thick binders documenting their text messages, emails and whereabouts on any given date.
Sam Nunberg, a former longtime adviser to Mr. Trump, said he feared that the special counsel was creating the impression of a wide-ranging conspiracy among liars, when witnesses could have dispelled much of the suspicion simply by testifying truthfully.
“People are conspiring against themselves, and they are playing right into Mueller’s hands,” he said. “If Flynn had said he discussed sanctions, he could very well be national security adviser today,” he added. Instead, Mr. Flynn awaits sentencing for lying to F.B.I. agents about various matters, including his talks with the Russian ambassador over whether the new administration would lift sanctions against Russia.
The reasons for the lies vary, but, not surprisingly, people were most often trying to protect themselves. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, said in federal court this past week that he had misled Congress about the details of a Trump hotel project in Moscow because he did not want to contradict the president’s own false characterizations of his business dealings in Moscow. He specifically cited his loyalty to Mr. Trump, referred to as “Individual 1” in court papers, as the reason for his crime.
“I made these misstatements to be consistent with Individual 1’s political messaging and out of loyalty to Individual 1,” Mr. Cohen told a judge. In a sentencing memo filed late Friday, Mr. Cohen emphasized that in the weeks before he misled Congress about the deal, he remained in “close and regular contact with White House-based staff,” as well as with Mr. Trump’s lawyers.
While the Moscow hotel was never built, Mr. Cohen’s court filing suggested that Mr. Trump at best minimized his knowledge of the proposed venture, both as a candidate and once he had been elected. Nearly two dozen times, Mr. Trump has publicly insisted that he had no business dealings in Russia.
But Mr. Cohen, who discussed the hotel project with the aide to a key Kremlin official in early 2016, said in Friday’s court filing that he kept Mr. Trump apprised of negotiations that continued through June of that year, just before Mr. Trump formally became the Republican nominee.
Mr. Manafort is accused of lying on top of lying. As part of a September plea deal, he acknowledged that he had lied to the Justice Department about his business dealings and that he had also tried to persuade witnesses to lie to investigators on his behalf. On Monday, prosecutors said that he continued to lie after he had agreed to cooperate with them, breaching his plea deal. His lawyers insist he told the truth.
Mr. Trump has been Mr. Mueller’s most vociferous critic, accusing his team of manufacturing lies by threatening witnesses with severe consequences if they refuse to agree with the special counsel’s narrative.
What prosecutors have called lies, Mr. Trump has insisted is truth. What they called truth, he has framed as lies.
Where all this is headed is unclear, but it appears that more allegations of lying are ahead. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has also been investigating Russia’s interference in the election, has referred other cases to the special counsel’s office involving witnesses who may have lied.
Prosecutors are investigating whether two or more people, including a longtime friend of Mr. Trump’s, Roger J. Stone Jr., lied about WikiLeaks, the rogue organization that distributed Democratic emails and other documents stolen by Russian intelligence as part of Moscow’s campaign to influence the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller’s team has been trying to determine whether anyone with the Trump campaign conspired with WikiLeaks or the Russian government to bolster Mr. Trump’s chances of winning the White House.
Jerome Corsi, a conservative author, has cast doubt on whether Mr. Stone testified truthfully to Congress about what inspired a Twitter message he posted in the summer of 2016. In it, Mr. Stone predicted, with a missing verb, “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel.”
Mr. Corsi said he had helped Mr. Stone concoct a “cover story” for the message so that it would not appear Mr. Stone had advance knowledge that WikiLeaks planned to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign by releasing emails stolen from the computer of her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta. He said Mr. Stone then incorporated those falsehoods into his congressional testimony — an allegation that Mr. Stone vehemently denies.
But in a turnabout, Mr. Corsi said prosecutors had now accused him of lying to them about other communications he had with Mr. Stone regarding WikiLeaks. He claims his only crime is a faulty memory.
‘Green Monday’ brings back some great Black Friday deals
Taxi driver dies after setting himself on fire to protest carpool app
New York Red Bulls Announce Protected Player List
Entertainment7 months ago
Entertainment4 months ago
The New York Times best-seller list
Entertainment8 months ago
Transportation Alternatives bike month sponsored by Kiwi Energy
MTA News8 months ago
MTA’s first female head of NYC subway
Uber, lyft and other taxis7 months ago
Lyft driver sexually assaulted passenger – again!
MTA News5 months ago
Access-a-Ride needs access to bus lanes
Entertainment7 months ago
Street closures for the Five Boro Bike Tour
MTA News9 months ago
The winners of МТА Genius Transit Challenge