A New Vocabulary of Violence?

Associated Press Writer Nafeesa Syeed drew upon some interesting terminology in reporting a violent shooting incident in the District of Columbia last night:

A gunman sprayed bullets from a moving vehicle into a crowd in southeastern Washington, killing four and wounding at least five others, before leading police on a chase into neighboring Maryland.

Three people were arrested in the drive-by shooting Tuesday. The D.C. councilman who represents the area said a dispute between groups in the neighborhood apparently caused the shooting.

Groups? Was there something about this incident that distinguished it from what usually counts for gang-related violence? It took a page scroll to account for both who the councilman was and how that particular word came to be used:

D.C. Councilman Marion Barry, a former mayor who now represents the area of the city where the shootings occurred, called the attack a vicious crime. Barry, who had been briefed by police, said it appears "crews" — groups of friends who are not necessarily organized as gangs — had some sort of dispute with each other.

So, apparently, the new term of art, at least in reporting crime in the District of Columbia, is "crew;" and Syeed had deliberately used "groups" to avoid using "gangs."

Do we really need a new term of art where drive-by shootings are involved? Who was responsible for introducing it? Who really benefits from the distinction it draws?

All we can deduce from Syeed's text is that Barry used the term after having been "briefed by police." We have no idea whether or not the word was used by the police in their briefing. My knowledge of Barry's past and my innate sense of cynicism both lead me to hypothesize that the term originated with Barry himself, perhaps because he made a campaign promise to rid his district of gang violence, which would have been quite a promise for one of the tougher parts of town. However, I doubt that many of those represented by Barry would see much value in that kind of terminological legerdemain. Any distinction between "crew" and "gang" has little impact on how safe it is to walk the streets. Those who think they can hide behind vocabulary when confronted with an ugly state of affairs should hang their heads in shame (assuming, that is, that prevailing conditions have not purged any sense of shame from their spirits).

Getting out of the Hole, or Digging it Deeper?

Yesterday I focused on the proposition that "irrationality knows no bounds." Today's news brings evidence that the same can be said about greed. (Resolving the question of whether or not greed is irrational is left as an exercise for the reader.) The evidence comes from Candice Choi, Personal Finance Writer for Associated Press. It takes the form of an anecdote of one of the major victims of the current economic crisis, an ordinary citizen faced with the problem of credit card debt. Her name is Lindsey Pappas, she is 25 years old, and she is fortunate enough to have a job here in San Francisco in public relations. Here is Choi's account of her story:

She received a letter from Citi Wednesday that her interest rate was being hiked to 19.99 percent, up from 14.99 percent.

If she spends $750 a month, however, she can get a refund for part of the higher interest rate charges.

The problem is that Pappas is trying to pay off a $5,000 balance on the card, so she tries not to charge any money on it.

"I'm just going to have to deal with the higher interest rate. Spending that much would be irresponsible," she said.

Choi does not provide the details for how Pappas got into her $5000 hole, but that last sentence seems to indicate that she has learned the consequences of unmanageable debt. At the very least she has learned that you do not get out of a hole by digging it deeper.

Choi also explains the context behind Citi making this offer (which, depending on your point of view, is either predatory or preposterous) in the first place:

The change by Citi comes as the industry rushes to adjust to sweeping reforms to start in February that will limit when and how much card issuers can hike interest rates. In a statement, Citi said the actions were necessary given elevated losses from souring loans and "regulatory changes that eliminate repricing for that risk."

The bank also noted that "customers who do more business with us will have the most opportunity to reduce their rates."

Citi's reasoning (deliberately?) overlooks the obvious corollary that, in their semantic model of the world, "doing more business" actually means "building up more customer debt." Ultimately, this is a last-ditch effort to promote one more Ponzi scheme before new regulations take effect. The only way in which Citi distinguishes itself from Bernard Madoff is that, while Madoff preyed on the substantial retirement assets of a relatively select few, Citi can go after the sizable percentage of all of its 92 million credit card customers who do not pay off their balance in full every month, making up for the relatively small profit from each account by the high volume of the number of accounts.

So, someone remind me, was Citi one of those businesses declared by our government as "too big to fail?" If so, is it about time to promote the new motto of "too devious to succeed?" Sadly, that will never be more than wishful thinking. If greed does, indeed, know no bounds, then there will never be any such thing as "too devious!"

Motivating Good Governance

The Mo Ibrahim Prize was announced three years ago. At that time I wrote on my previous blog (under the somewhat sarcastic title, "The Best Government Money can Buy?") that "Mohammed (Mo) Ibrahim will use his self-made millions to back an annual $5 million prize to be awarded to former African leaders 'who had demonstrated excellence in government.'" This morning Al Jazeera reported that the prize would not be awarded this year:

The prize committee had "considered some credible candidates" but could not select a winner, Ketumile Masire, the president of Botswana, said on Monday.

He said the foundation "noted the progress made with governance in some African countries, while noticing with concern recent setbacks in other countries".

One can understand the predicament of the prize committee, but it revives my own sense of sarcasm. Is the motive behind the prize still a valid one that has been jeopardized by the current economic crisis? Is the principle a good one that has found itself reduced to haggling over the price? However, rather than take refuge in sarcasm, I would prefer to take this as a sign that governments (and particularly relatively new governments) are, and have always been, inherently fragile. One cannot necessarily reinforce the sources of fragility by throwing money at them. Strength needs to grow along with the government itself; and there is probably no general rule regarding the best "nutrients" for that growth. Ibrahim should be lauded for his out-of-the-box thinking; but solving the problem of good governance may lie elsewhere.