Friday, July 10, 2009

119, 120


View Larger Map

View Larger Map
Light for all, more light for some... Two murders and three nonfatal shootings crammed into a single paragraph in the local daily. Killed were an 18-year-old shot in the 1700 block of Division & Laurens Sts. two days ago, and an unidentified man last night at McElderry & Curley Sts.

Jayne Miller on the long, long record of Lamont Davis, accused of shooting 5-year-old Raven Wyatt whilst footloose and fancy-free.

Puhleaze. Troy Harris suspended over nudie pic mistakenly sent to the WBAL newsroom. (Wouldn't most people just laugh that off? Were they really freaky? Is his girlfriend 12?) Here's the newsroom address, just in case you would also like to send them some boobies.

Recent Supreme Court ruling could impact Baltimore vs. Wells Fargo

Ewiewieewew, just looking at the pic of the balding soccer coach arrested for sexting w/14-year-old is violating enough

11 comments:

Cham said...

People are missing the point on Lamont Davis. Rather than looking at his rather long and pathetic rap sheet over a short life span we should be looking at why he chose the loser criminal route, and why so many others are choosing this path as well. Locking them all up forever and ever doesn't work because there is another massive army of children making some really bad choices coming up right behind them. Until we terminate the cause nothing will change. Raven died 2 weeks ago who dies next? Oh wait a minute, we already have 117 and 118 on the same post.

Cham said...

The Troy Harris thing sounds like stupid shit. Wasting my tax dollars again. I think I have a bunch of nekid pics somewhere on my computer as well.

MJB said...

Raven is still alive

Anonymous said...

As long as 12-16 year olds in Baltimore continue to have children, you will continue to have the crime problem.

No community program is going to stop the "loser criminal route".

Quit giving money and resources to these people that allows them to live and carelessly reproduce.

Cham said...

Money and resources? You can take all the money and resources away and women will still choose to have babies born with the baby daddy nowhere in sight.

Anonymous said...

Eventually, you take the cash away and they will no longer have kids. It won't be profitable.

Now you have a 14-year-old have a baby. She gets compensation. She hands the baby off to a great aunt. The great aunt applies to the state to be compensated as a "foster parent". It's an industry in Baltimore.

Cut off the funds and the kids go away. Abortions for everyone. I am sure you are pro-choice, right Cham?

MJB said...

How about fact-based education on human biology for everyone.
And I agree with you Mel. Welfare started off with the best of intentions and has become a horrible mutated nightmare that creates incentives for irresponsible pregnancy and child neglect.

Cham said...

It isn't welfare or foster parenting that is fueling daddyless children. Women will do it as long as there are no consequences. Which means, to stop it there has to be consequences.

MJB said...

I don't know what could be a tougher consequence than single motherhood itself

Anonymous said...

MJB said...

I don't know what could be a tougher consequence than single motherhood itself.

It's not tough when she can constantly pass the kid off on her mom so she can go hang out in the club all night.

Like Chris rock says: "If the kid calls his grandmom 'mom' and his mom 'Pam', then the kid is going to the penitentiary. "if the only words the kid knows are 'Mommy be back' then the kid is going to the penitentiary."

Cham said...

Single motherhood isn't a consequence, it's an objective. Just about all of the daddyless children were and are very much wanted. If mothers didn't want to be single parents they'd use birth control or make their way to the abortion clinic. Trust me, women who don't want to be mothers make sure they aren't.

Perhaps we have a bit of a disconnect here, those that aren't single parents by choice don't seem to understand what is going on. Not everyone aspires to have a job, a vinyl-sided house in the burbs or meaningful work. Some people just want to have kids, and it doesn't really matter whether they are equipped to handle parenting or not. You can take welfare away and all that goes with it but the daddyless children will still be born.

I wouldn't really care about what anyone else does with their vagina, but the statistics can't be ignored. The kids(black, white, brown and yellow) committing the majority of crimes come from fatherless homes. I suggest we quit worrying about welfare, WIC, foodstamps and fostercare and keep out eye on the ball. I would have no problem making it illegal to raise children in a home without both a male and female adult living in it. Rich or poor, my law would apply to everyone.