Most recent public comments by Lacy Smith https://nowcomment.com/users/15345 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314861 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314861 There is a common saying "don't get high on your own supply." We saw this assumed rule throughout The Wire but in this piece Caesar clearly didn't follow the unspoken rule. If in fact they believed their supply was the best and selling to their employees would also provide them with more revenue, why is purchasing and using their own supply so frowned upon? I see one possibility that if they use their own supply and get caught and searched by the police, if its someone else's supply it would not be traced back to their specific gang/business. Another reason for this rule could be similar to the situation here with Caesar, it promotes lazy/ unreliable behavior and makes them unlikely to do their job and if they do it will be done poorly. Are there any other unspoken rules that apply? Wed, 03 Apr 2019 22:30:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314828 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314828 All of the material factors-- money, working conditions, stability of pay and hours, and lower likelihood of incarceration-- all lead to the conclusion that the crack economy would be inferior to the legal economy. Some of the intangible factors in opposition are respect on the street and the generational theme of working on the streets. While it is very clear to us that the legal economy would definitely outweigh the crack economy, is it a case of these common intangible factors (generational/cultural now and respect) that lead men to pick the crack economy over the legal economy? Or is it the political factors that are barring these men from entering the legal economy and therefore only giving them the opportunity to enter the crack economy in the first place? Wed, 03 Apr 2019 22:10:09 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314802 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314802 This section and question reminds me of how I felt reading Gang Leader for a Day. Sudhir Venkatesh also played with the lines here during his ethnography as well. To write such an in depth piece they fully immerse themselves into the culture and even flirt with the law at times. I do believe that these sociologists, which are not of the same race/cultural background as the gangs they are inserting themselves into, case the environment to change and the change may be a less realistic representation than a typical/not intruded gang. They are likely getting a watered down, half version of the lifestyles. As long as they follow the law, I do believe they can go back to academic lifestyles since it simply adds more to their understanding and knowledge and allows them to be more informed. In the case of Sudhir I remember he did it mostly on his own without being told to. Academics should not be forced to performs studies likes this but also should not be stopped if they wish to. Wed, 03 Apr 2019 21:49:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314282 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314282 This point definitely supports the role of media, what they choose to publicize/glorify and how this shapes the views of society. We should have more realistic representations such as The Wire, which show few, Stinger, Avon, and Marlo, as the only ones who have a more lavish lifestyle. This piece didn't glorify drug-dealing unless you are at the highest possible level, the top dog, and if you weren't you are barely making enough to survive. To your final point of mainstream society not offering stable/minimum wage alternatives to felons, I would be interested to see how Poot and Cutty obtained and worked through the attached stigma of being a convicted criminal in the work force. Wed, 03 Apr 2019 21:53:47 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314266 https://nowcomment.com/documents/136072?scroll_to=1314266 I also found this distinction very interesting as well. The opportunity cost (minimum wage job) may not equal or outweighs the benefits of being a dealer alone. I would be interested to look at the opportunity cost of time as well, the jail-time, the family/friend time, etc. Would the addition of the benefits of this time plus the minimum wage job compensation outweigh these crack dealer benefits? Also while this is a case where dealers may have the choice to work minimum wage jobs, how many actually have that choice? In my opinion I see the majority not having this choice between the two but instead are forced into the role of the streets. Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:05:18 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306664 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306664 I agree with both your and Alexander's point of prisons lack of improvement and instead cause more issues than solutions. In past readings they pointed to the lack of improvement from rehabilitation facilities, which led to prisons as the now forefront option. What should the government have in place if both prisons and rehabilitation facilities both don't prevent crime or help lower the rates? Is it purely increasing the quality of these programs or should they work to build new programs from scratch? Sun, 24 Mar 2019 16:42:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306041 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306041 This is the perfect example of how supply and demand works in the economy. The supply of land ownership increased, these owners needed workers (demand) and the only way to get workers was to purchase large amounts of slaves. Another strong example of this played out in the introduction of drugs. Whether filtered through the government, obtained through immigrants, or produced in-house, drugs such as cocaine (crack) and heroine caused a large supply in open labor, the selling of these drugs. African Americans had a much higher unemployment rate than whites, leading them to demand these open labor positions simply to make 'easy' money. If instead whites were the ones with higher unemployment, it is likely they would have taken these drug dealer roles as well. We see this example play out in The Wire as well. African American characters assumed the roles on the streets because they were vacant, convenient, and provided them a needed source of income. Michael was a strong example of this, needing money since his mother failed to provide for him and his brother, and because he was so young he couldn't work many other (legal) places, leading him to take an open, but illegal, job on the streets. Wed, 27 Mar 2019 22:07:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306034 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306034 As Alexander stated earlier in the chapter, Blacks were not the first option for slaves but became the choice because they wanted people who would not revolt/were less aggressive. After slavery was abolished and southern whites specifically were still looking to asset their dominance/race, the black men and women who are now free began to rise up, refusing to be enslaved again. It is shocking that this refusal became equated with Blacks as "aggressive, unruly predators." That stereotype is still very much intact today and doesn't look to be diminishing anytime soon. This stereotype is enforced through the media and films, who constantly showcase African Americans as the bad, dangerous guys. I see the media/news as the reason this stereotype is strong and very much alive today. Is that the only reason? Is politics, the Constitution, court rulings, or other forces more motivating? Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:48:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306019 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306019 I, and Alexander, agree with your statement that though there are examples of African American success stories, there are far and few. The examples Alexander uses, Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey, are much more unrealistic than the examples provided in The Wire. The Wire shows more telling stories of Black success in society today. Not many people will have their own TV show or become President of the United States, but some will attend/graduate school and some will work or own their own business. The Wire shows African American success by multiple police officers such as Daniels, Cutty owning his own boxing facility, Poot working at a shoe store rather than on the streets, and children like Namond working hard and becoming a good student in school. Fri, 22 Mar 2019 22:17:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306005 https://nowcomment.com/documents/134033?scroll_to=1306005 In my opinion Alexander was suggesting the Constitution written to preserve racial castes and the separation of the majority/minority. Slaves were in what she considered "undercaste," but didn't make direct mention to slaves (used the terms 'property'). Owning slaves and land were typical of the majority, not of the minority. While the Constitution didn't work to stop slavery, I think it just skirted around the corners, mentioning as little about the topic as possible since many of the Founding Fathers may have known slavery was wrong but still owned them, themselves. Their specific wording works to provide power to those with property, which very few African Americans had. This works to further weaken the African Americans power/citizenship, but is not fully enforcing they should be or stay in slavery. Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:40:19 -0500