How do those figures correlate to per capita population figures?
Search is just a click away, if you're really interested in the answer to your question!
I only asked since you offered the original chart and I thought I'd give you the opportunity to defend your position.
Defend what? Your wild surmise?
Nope.
Your chart doesn't really refute my original comment. That's a significant amount of crime in a geographically small area, whether referring to the peak or the current rate.
Your original comment was that "Much of DC(1) is crime-ridden(2) dump thanks to the mayor(3)."Let me see if I can break it down for you, focusing on the highlighted part. (1) When you say "much" what did you mean? 75%? 85%? 95%? I assumed it was the latter, which puts is close enough to "all of DC" for data purposes; (2) and (3) When you said "crime-ridden" and qualified it with "thanks to the mayor," you clearly situated it in the present time (i.e., current mayor) relative to the past (i.e., previous mayors), with a somewhat lazily derisive term "crime-ridden" thrown in for effect.
So, given your vague wording, which, to a reasonable reader, seemed like you were referring to crime levels in the present compared the past in close-to-all ("much") of DC, my data points were perfectly apropos.
Then you changed your premise. Typical, when you get called out.
Got to move on now. Sorry.
No problem, but the crime rate is high and all one need do is compare it to other cities with a similar population number.
Probably not a popular sentiment, and I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, but...
The mention of turning Carnegie's philanthropic donation into a "massive retail presence" doesn't sit well with me. I appreciate that Apple is restoring the building, but this building should be used exclusively for the public good and not for someone's profit.
I don't blame Apple, I blame poor city planning that let this resource slip away. And it's not just Washington DC, this has happened at Carnegie library buildings all over the country.
I get where you're coming from, but why not blame the Carnegie foundation? Just because they threw around a ton of money for good purposes over 100 years doesn't mean that everything they touched was golden and needs to be maintained as-is forever. For example, if I give a million bucks to found a library, but didn't provide enough money for it to maintained in perpetuity, I would have nothing to complain about if it some day it gets turned into a Tesla showroom.
How do those figures correlate to per capita population figures?
Search is just a click away, if you're really interested in the answer to your question!
I only asked since you offered the original chart and I thought I'd give you the opportunity to defend your position.
Defend what? Your wild surmise?
Nope.
Your chart doesn't really refute my original comment. That's a significant amount of crime in a geographically small area, whether referring to the peak or the current rate.
Your original comment was that "Much of DC(1) is crime-ridden(2) dump thanks to the mayor(3)."Let me see if I can break it down for you, focusing on the highlighted part. (1) When you say "much" what did you mean? 75%? 85%? 95%? I assumed it was the latter, which puts is close enough to "all of DC" for data purposes; (2) and (3) When you said "crime-ridden" and qualified it with "thanks to the mayor," you clearly situated it in the present time (i.e., current mayor) relative to the past (i.e., previous mayors), with a somewhat lazily derisive term "crime-ridden" thrown in for effect.
So, given your vague wording, which, to a reasonable reader, seemed like you were referring to crime levels in the present compared the past in close-to-all ("much") of DC, my data points were perfectly apropos.
Then you changed your premise. Typical, when you get called out.
Got to move on now. Sorry.
No problem, but the crime rate is high and all one need do is compare it to other cities with a similar population number.
Ha. Tail between your legs for a bullshit comment.
Probably not a popular sentiment, and I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, but...
The mention of turning Carnegie's philanthropic donation into a "massive retail presence" doesn't sit well with me. I appreciate that Apple is restoring the building, but this building should be used exclusively for the public good and not for someone's profit.
I don't blame Apple, I blame poor city planning that let this resource slip away. And it's not just Washington DC, this has happened at Carnegie library buildings all over the country.
I totally agree! These facilities were donated to the communities by the Steve Jobs of the prior century -- Andrew Carnegie... Carnegie changed the world and then used his vast wealth to create these libraries so that people less fortunate could improve their life through education.
The mills that Carnegie built are gone now (the victims of greed, mismanagement and a changing world). But his legacy continues through these libraries.
Jobs was an equally great, modern day industrialist. I find it ironic that the legacy that he left plans to turn Carnegie's legacy into a mere retail store.... I wonder what Jobs and Carnegie would have to say about that? If those two great men (who were both deeply devoted to improving the human condition) could sit down and talk: How would Jobs treat the legacy and the contribution he made to improving people's lives of such a fellow great man?
Comments
The mills that Carnegie built are gone now (the victims of greed, mismanagement and a changing world). But his legacy continues through these libraries.
Jobs was an equally great, modern day industrialist. I find it ironic that the legacy that he left plans to turn Carnegie's legacy into a mere retail store.... I wonder what Jobs and Carnegie would have to say about that? If those two great men (who were both deeply devoted to improving the human condition) could sit down and talk: How would Jobs treat the legacy and the contribution he made to improving people's lives of such a fellow great man?