Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

IN TRUTH, THERE IS HOPE HERE by Erin Valentine Bussey

When I tell people I’m from Baltimore, the immediate follow-up question is almost always, “Is it really like The Wire?” Well, yes. Some of it is. We’re a majority African-American city where 20% of citizens live in poverty. One in 10 Baltimoreans suffers from addiction. There are few job opportunities, and the booming drug trade is a fast and reliable source of cash. Violence is the leading cause of death for young adults.

We reached a historic milestone this week in Baltimore. We’ve had 100 homicides in the first 107 days of 2022. There have been 201 non-fatal shootings. We’re now on track to record more than 300 homicides for the eighth straight year. We’ve got the second-highest murder rate in the country at 58 per 100,000.

Yes, it’s bad. We know it’s bad. And it’s very easy to normalize that level of violence as just a number and give in to hopelessness, especially when we’re being told over and over that we are hopeless. Donald Trump has called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat, and rodent-infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.”

In February, in a segment on the failure of democracy in the US, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson called the city “one of the worst places in the western hemisphere” and “a little bit of Haiti in the mid-Atlantic” that had gone from a “once beautiful city into a slum.”  He blamed Baltimore’s murder rate on Democrats’ progressive policing policies, saying, “In Baltimore, pretty much everyone in charge is black, yet it’s a matter of religious faith that the main thing holding the city back is white racism.” At the bottom of the screen, a chyron read, “Hellscape 40 Miles from the Nation’s Capital.”

He directed his comments at White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. “You claim to care so deeply about African Americans…and yet here is one of the biggest black-majority cities in the United States. Tens of thousands of black people who live in Baltimore are in misery because their kids keep getting murdered.”

Reinforcing a narrative of fear about a majority-black city in peril from poverty and violence to push a political agenda is almost as harmful to Baltimore as the poverty and violence itself. The more we hear Baltimore referred to as a “slum,” the less hope we Baltimoreans have that things may ever change. Giving in to that mentality means that we have much less energy to create a dialog on more productive solutions, including Tucker Carlson’s suggestion to resume prosecuting low-level drug crimes.

In truth, there is hope here. Baltimore’s community-based movements are making an impact. The Safe Streets program puts volunteers on the streets to diffuse potentially violent disputes. Safe Streets says that in 2021 it mediated 935 conflicts that had the potential to become violent. Others still hope. City hospitals have united in the “Violence Intervention Program.” When a victim of violent crime is admitted to the hospital, they are paired with a caseworker who develops an action plan to create a strong support system designed to reduce the risk of violent re-offenses. At the University of Maryland Medical Center, at-risk youth spend a day in the Shock Trauma Center, where almost a quarter of all patients treated are victims of violence.

We know it’s bad. We know how it looks. People are fleeing the city in droves; our population has shrunk from nearly 1 million in the 1970s to only 580,000 in 2020. T. Rowe Price, Target, Barnes & Noble, and Holiday Inn have recently packed up and left downtown due to the city’s rising crime. You watched us destroy our own communities during the Freddie Gray riots in 2015.

We undoubtedly have some serious issues to address in Baltimore, including violence, blight, a failing education system, and corrupt police and politicians. We can’t hide it. But the last thing we need is for political outsiders to hold us up as a race-baiting pawn against the opposite party. We know you want us to fail, but we’re not going to be your punching bag. The truth is that we are still here, and we still have hope.

POLLUTING SCIENCE WITH POLITICS AND CZARS by William Scoggins Jr.

There are numerous global tragedies and fallouts from the Covid-19 pandemic. The most tragic pertaining to science and technology is the perception that science is not to be trusted. Public confidence in science has trended downward and that can be plainly attributed to its direct linkage to politicians and the media, as well as science figures who have taken this time to pursue their own agendas.

Another real-world example of the dangers of polluting science with partisan politics is the original Build Back Better plan. Build Back Better was a part of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and subsequently endorsed by the United Nations, long before being tied to a political agenda and presidential election. In a nonpartisan world, this version of Build Back Better should yield 100% support from our political leaders. The basic concept surrounds rebuilding communities and properties with the most recent and robust specifications after a disaster. This practice is essential to building resilient communities, especially with an ever-changing climate and natural disasters causing so much damage in terms of lives lost and economic burden.

Build Back Better should have been introduced in a bipartisan fashion and focused on its intended core philosophy and passed through our government. Instead, a profusion of unrelated programs was lumped into the bill. The bill also focused on unjustified and costly demolition and rebuild processes, in lieu of the original build back better if a disaster damages or destroys the property. It is this type of political malpractice that turns great science and technology policy that would benefit our nation as whole into failed bills that would be detrimental to our health, wellbeing, and solvency as a country. Once the trust is lost, it is almost impossible to get it back…   

To rebuild the trust between the national science and technology community and our citizen’s, there is an immediate need to break the perceived collusion between science and technology representatives and politicians and the media. Science and technology should be a stand-alone federal department/division and completely bipartisan politically. To further function as a separate entity, the science and technology department should have a public relations spokesperson who communicates its activities directly from the scientific leaders and their perspectives without bias.

The leader of the science and technology federal department should be reputable within the scientific community and not a position that is subject to the volatility of administration changes and political agendas. The head of this division should be someone who confirms or rejects the scientific validity of an administration’s agenda through real science and research and not someone who is hand-picked, and goes through the political appointment process, only to be a partisan science czar.

We live in a time where our confidence in politicians and the media are at continuously historic lows. The national and global population has started to associate and view the science and technology field and its spokespeople in a comparable way. It is time to separate science and technology from political and mainstream media agendas.

 

TOP TEN FOR SOUTH CAROLINA by Monica Culbreath

Even though Domestic Violence has been a topic getting traction in South Carolina since Governor Nikki Haley declared October as Domestic Violence Awareness month, the incidence is not getting much lower. Looking over the most recent numbers in South Carolina, it is disheartening to learn we are still ranked among the top worst states for Domestic Violence in which women are killed by men. Even though the numbers are at their lowest since the ranking system was formed, South Carolina is still one of the top ten. This is such a terribly expensive badge for us to wear. It is not readily known how costly Domestic Violence is to the state as most still see it as a family problem. Domestic Violence is very costly to the state: costly mentally, physically, and economically to experience, support the victims, and punish the perpetrators of Domestic Violence.  Here are some impediments that keep South Carolina among the top states with this deadly issue.  

Most citizens of South Carolina are not conscious of the extremely high rates of Domestic Violence which take place in this state. This indifference has serious implications as problems cannot be addressed if one is oblivious to them. There is just such a lack of resources available for the victims and survivors of Domestic Violence.  For the entire state that has about 5 million people, there is only one organization (SCCDVSA) which acts as an umbrella for 13 organizations available to combat Domestic Violence. The low number of existing supports translates to lack of services for the many victims living in the state. Without adequate funding many survivors are unaware of the limited resources which are available. One of the easiest solutions to address our Domestic Violence problem is to bring attention to the problem. Knowing the high financial toll absorbed by the state would encourage solutions developing plans to prevent domestic violence. 

Domestic Violence in South Carolina is a complex problem calling for many solutions as each situation is different. For one adult providing housing removes them from experiencing Domestic Violence while for another extensive therapy and education is needed to successfully escape.  It is essential for us to address the obstacles keeping South Carolinians at the top of such a deadly list as it is costing the state more than $350 million dollars annually based on a study from Dr. Joey Von Hessen. This is not acceptable; this cost is too high. Lives are being lost and children are becoming orphans. Modifying proven solutions in other states is another step to aid South Carolina in effectively finding answers. Hopefully, in the next twenty years, South Carolina will be ranked in the bottom states in incidents of domestic violence instead of the top. 

INDIA – A UNIQUE STUDY SUBJECT by Sharan Ravishankar

I want to talk about a research study that was conducted in 2019 by Placek and Ravishankar on political attitudes potentially influencing a person’s satisfaction with the government in India. This topic is fascinating because India has gone through something unique since the 1990s, specifically, economic liberalization of foreign markets that brought into the country multiple social media platforms, like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

Using the 2018 Pew Research Center data set, the authors of the study regarded social media as an independent variable and satisfaction with the country, economic situation, and democracy, as well as confidence in the current prime minister Narendra Modi, as dependent variables. A linear regression analysis revealed that social media had significant relationships with country satisfaction and confidence in Modi. Conversely, satisfaction with democracy and economic situation did not relate to the independent variable. Interestingly, the general consensus is that social media creates more division within a given country; however, the opposite can be confirmed here: country satisfaction and confidence in leadership correlate well on social media.

One of the reasons the other variables were not statistically significant is that India, like many Asian countries, still uses “old” media, meaning newspapers, television, and other traditional ways of gathering news. This “old” media continues to sway people’s political attitudes in these Asian countries. India is still a developing country in many ways; yet, it is becoming a global leader and is open to having different mediums influence local political attitudes. It is not the same country that gained independence in 1947. With the current trends saying India will take over China when it comes to population and seeing rapid growth of social media, it will be interesting to see how all of that will affect political attitudes in the future studies. Political scientists may want to research India more than it has already been studied!