This makes me reconsider my favorite club.

SCs to tend to attract some bad characters. Since these bad MFs cannot get a date OTC, they come in for a fantasy one. I do not go to SC during the night 95% of the time because of what you have just described and because the best dancers in my area that work in smaller clubs (I like them better) do not work night shifts for that same reason.

AN- How does SC incident compare to regular bar/clb rates?? I read incident on other board, club was Good Guys, right? I guess come & go as you please will be replaced by metal screener @ door. I think this happened outside club, closing hrs. I can't imagine a guy walking inside club w. gas can.

These incidents are just ONE reason I tend to make daytime visits to my favorite clubs. Another reason is like AN said, I hate crowds. The MAIN reason is because I usually end up with a selection of dancers to choose from and can get 'DAYTIME' LD prices.

minnow, It happened inside the club at approximately 8PM according to the newspaper account. By that time on a Saturday there are plenty of bouncers. I don't know what kind of container he used to get the gas into the club. NOTHING approaching either the stabbing or the latest incident has happened in this neighborhood for years. It is just north of Georgetown and next to Embassy row in DC. The national cathedral is a few blocks north, Hillary Clinton's house is less than a half a mile away and the Vice President's residence is even closer. In this one area there are DC metro police, National Cathedral police, Secret Service, and DOD police, and they all patrol. To say that this neighborhood is safe is to put it mildly. I don't think I've seen any incidents of violence in this neighborhood other than the two strip clubs for years, and I usually scan the Metro section of the paper just to see what is up (I used to live in the same neighborhood).

In another safe neighborhood in Broward right on the beach a man had sulfuric acid from a cooler dump on him by two tough peabrain guys. The man lived in agony for about a month I think before dying at a fairly young age. An old man had hired the thugs because the middle age man kept cutting thru the condominium side area to get to the beach even after the old man had warned him not to use the short cut to get the beach.

What does this prove? Well condominiums harm a neighborhood. There are many horror stories involving condominiums. In fact, I don't want to share the details but I got screwed big time thanks to a condominium. They need to be legally abolished and then physically abolished.

As much as I love strip clubs if a deal could be reached with religious nuts and concerned citizens to abolish both as a package deal I'd be thrilled. Condominiums are pure nastiness whether low rent or high rent. :(

Interesting argument. The problem is that stripclubs, by their nature, attract trouble. You could find thousands of condominiums where nobody douses anyone with gasoline, or hires thugs to pour acid on someone, or where someone is stabbed to death for taking someones favorite dancer. As I mentioned peripherally I think strip clubs are a specific magnet to violent or sick people as opposed to anectdotaly involved with sick individuals.

And, the sick or violent people just disappear if you get rid of strip clubs. :)

They're not doing drivebys in Coral Gables. The crack addict that tried a home invasion of my home didn't realize there is a strip for him just a couple miles away. :)

Yep, eliminate strip clubs and sick violent people head to their therapists or the local churches to pray for strength from the gods.

Besides you may like condominiums, but I know the truth. They're vermin magnets. Yeah, there are plenty o good condo people but there is the old saying about one rotten apple spoiling the barrel. That is almost an absolute truth when in comes to condominiums. They're vile and nasty and spread hate. :(

"And, the sick or violent people just disappear if you get rid of strip clubs."

Nice strawman, gotta hat for it? I never claimed any such thing. I merely pointed out that stripclubs tend to act as a magnet for marginal personalities. In all my years of bartending I've had to break up fights maybe half a dozen times, and I worked some very blue collar shot-and-a-beer places where fighting is seen as blowing off steam on a Friday night. Hanging out in bars, I've seen maybe 4 or 5 fights over 25ish years. Clubbing? I've seen a fight almost every time I've been in a club past 9PM.

My point is not that we can cure violence by closing strip clubs, it is far more simple, and yet once again seems beyond comprehension to some people. When some neighborhood residents claim a strip club is a bad addition to the neighborhood, that it brings prostitution, drugs and violence, maybe, just maybe, they aren't puritanical bluenoses afraid of sex crying wolf. Just maybe they have a point, and just maybe local politicians and voters who listen to them aren't all right wing religious fanatics and puritans.

I understood the point, but the problem at least in this area some of the nicest areas have really violent crime. The criminals are lured by money of all things! Gee, the neighbors ought to rally against the wealthy moving into their neighborhood.

Not only that at least here the strip clubs came first to cater to tourists. Homeowners claim this and they claim that, but if you care to look at the governments crime map it is a lot of hot air as far as the surrounding areas.

Now these nitwits who are all up in arms about crime ought to look at a real source crime. Government subsidized housing. Watch the good old crime map explode with activity.

You know if I had a strip closer to me, then I could start whimpering that the drug lab was due to the strip club and the crack addict was due to the strip club and the DEA with their guns drawn on numerous occasions is due to the strip club.

Actually, I have a stinking church about 1 1/2 blocks away. It draws sinners and other low lifes. Time to ABOLISH it. :)

Going way back decades ago the neighbors had a solution for crime. Hire more police officers. Gee the more officers that were hired the more the crime rate soared. It is a fun little game. People who 30 years earlier might have been considered good neighbors get branded with the criminal tag. The prisons get filled. The lawyers and judges get wealthy. The people demand more police who arrest more people. The taxes go thru the roof to pay for all this silliness and the solution is more of the same. Maybe if the government just started killing people that would solve the crime problem.

O, almost forgot the strip clubs. There are far fewer strip clubs, but of course the strip clubs are responsible for all the crime! It is fucking brilliant. And, you know what? The stinking churches thanks to the Haitians have exploded in number. Gee, that is real neat. Replace massage parlors (there were tons) and the replace strip clubs (there were a good number), with churches (there were few) and the results is? More violent crime per capita. Less friendliness and more hate. The solution? More churches, more police, more prisons, higher taxes, etc. etc.

" the problem at least in this area some of the nicest areas have really violent crime. The criminals are lured by money of all things!"

Not true. Look at crime statistics (sorry to throw facts into the gears of opinion). The highest crime areas are almost always the poorest. Why? Rich people don't cary cash. They may drive nice cars and have credit cards, but most of their cars are lojacked and their credit cards are canceled within an hour or so of robery. Who deals in cash? Poor people who can't qualify for credit cards or keep a minimum balance of $1000 on a checking account. They deal in cash and are therefore the most attractive victims. Try to buy crack with an AMEX. Try to fence a lojacked Porche. It doesn't happen.

When I was a bartender I regularly walked home with $300 cash and had a cash stash of over $2000 at one point. That was when I was "poor". Now I make over $80,000/year. I never have over $100 in my wallet, and probably not more than $200 in my house. Want to rob my house? Fine, you can get a DVD player for $50, how much do you think you can pawn one for? 40" flat screen? Yeah, try to cary that a few blocks, then convince someone that you came into it totally legitimately, and so they should give you the full $1500 it's worth.

Criminals look for cash, or they settle for pennies on the dollar. The highest crime neighborhoods are NOT the richest. That is simply not true.

The facts are Coral Gables was being hit by violent home invasions. That is one of the nicest areas in Miami-Dade county. Now, unless things have changed in the last 5 years and you want to look at violent crime look where the money is. HELLO, I had family living in the good areas of Dade County and there was crime and it was violent. And, gee whiz I happen to live in a D- rated area and before the police the crime was fairly low especially compared to where my wealthy relatives were living.

Now, if you're talking the government bullshit crime like prostitution or drugs or made up crime, then yep your talking the poor areas. The real crime in the poor areas is police arresting and harrassing young black males. That is the real crime, buddy.

O, the court system is here is just so wonderful and honest. These judges are such honest noble people. Just upstanding citizens. I was watching this hearing and the man is charged with everything but stealing the judge's toothbrushes. Among the many charges was of course kidnapping. A VIOLENT CRIME. Of course, he was from a poor area and looked like a typical blue collar wage slave. So his government lawyer works out a deal where he gets 1 year and a day instead of the hundreds of years he was facing. Praise the lord for free government lawyers!

Anyway, the judge asks the man if he has any questions at all before sentencing. The man says I don't want to cause any problems and I really need this plea deal. I have a wife and family. The judge says I don't have all day. The man says I'm sorry your honor, but you asked if I had any questions at all. The judge says go on. The man says please whatever you do just don't take the plea deal away from me. And, he is starting to beg like a normal person would in that situation. The judge instructs the government attorney to control her client. Turns out the man just wanted to know who was kidnapped. The judge is PISSED and says she doesn't have time for this and order the next case up. A week later the case comes up again. The judge says she is going to take the man's plea deal away. He breaks into tears. The government attorney calms the judge down and convinces her that it doesn't matter if no one was kidnapped he admits his guilt to the other crimes and the important thing is everyone agrees on the punishment. Yes, a real winner of a court system. Threaten people with hundreds of years and make them grateful to accept a year or two. Saves so much money and best of all the people admit their guilt!

Again, hate to interupt a screed with facts, but;

ojp.gov

Gee, if the government says it must be true and it doesn't even address what you claim. I claimed wealth is a magnet for violent crime. And, I also claimed the government subsidized housing is a crime magnet---hello again, the government subsidized housing is usually for the poor.

I thought I read a survey that said crime actually went down around strip clubs. I guess if the club is poorly managed and is not a private club and allows any riff raff in the door, it could attract a bad crowd. I guess the same thing applies to any bar or club though.

So let me get this straight, you claim that wealth is a magnet for crime. OK, therefore one would assume that wealthy people would therefore be more likely to be victims of crime, otherwise I can't imagine what you could mean. So I'll quote rather than link;

"Persons in households with an annual income under $7,500 were robbed at a significantly higher rate than persons in households earning more."

So what am I missing? Is it that your contention is that I can't use government statistics to back up my argument? OK, then tell me whose statistics are valid, and whose are you using?

After the government gets done eliminating stripclubs to save neighborhoods the next step should of course be liquor stores and bars. One officer interviewed by The Herald about 10 years ago had a great idea to save neighborhoods and I think it might work. He wanted a 9 PM curfew for everyone except police officers and other necessary workers. Yeah, we'd have more prisoners but what the hell good is a country without plenty of prisoners?

I do have a question, however, if the stripclubs and massage parlors were so damaging, then eliminating the parlors on NW 7th Avenue should have really saved the neighborhood. And, we should all be dancing for the wonderful government and its religious nuts. Along W. Dixie Hwy there is only Angels remaining thanks to heavy government attack. When I was young there was at least 10 stripclubs along W. Dixie Hwy and maybe more. Some were tiny little holes in the wall type places. They even could be located right next to each other! So I guess if the government finally kills off the last stripclub on W. Dixie, then the neighborhood will be saved and all the neighbors can start dancing for joy!

Yes, the government and it supporters always know best. I feel so good I even got my American flag to wave. :)

"Persons in households with an annual income under $7,500 were robbed at a significantly higher rate than persons in households earning more."

Gee, that doesn't address what I said at all. A person could be earning $100,000 a year and that wouldn't necessarily act as a crime magnet. The person could live very frugally. So you have hard working folk of middle and high income who aren't suffering home invasions because you don't have the wealth as a magnet for crime. Wealth and income aren't one and the same. In the Gables you have real wealth and people see that and surprise surprise you get violent home invasions to acquire that wealth.

These lavish homes homes with their valuables act as a magnet for violent crime. That doesn't mean low income people in areas with government subsidized housing don't have crime. I doubt they are suffering violent home invasions. That is Coral Gables with its lavish wealth in full display.

Nice screed. You didn't address anything I said or contest any fact I presented. You are not arguing, or debating, you are spewing opinion. I understand we live in an age impervious to the fine distinctions between reality, fact and opinion, but I have presented facts, in good faith, and you have presented screeds that neither adress, nor refute, the arguments or facts I have presented. I am at a loss to understand how I am to proceed with an argument at this point. Poor people, despite constituting a fraction (less that 10%) of the population are more likely to be victims of crime than the other 90% of the population. That is a fact. So how can one reconcile that with your contention that wealth attracts crime? Address the arguments I've made or don't, but don't claim some sort of refutation unless you can actually produce anything more than incoherent rants.

I also have another point-- Households with annual income under $7,500.

Gee, lordy lordy. That sounds like the slums err projects the government built everywhere in formerly working class areas. Yep, good old wonderful government getting rid of low cost housing that wasn't densely populated at all and replacing with these nasty cramped slums. NO air conditioning. A war zone almost overnight. :) I liked the projects alot. Lots of crime. Violent crime. And, nasty living conditions. Rats, roaches, what a place. Taxpayers paid for that shit too. :)

Yes, subsidized housing beats out wealth as a crime magnet. But, I said that before. It was done all over the country building these "free" instant government slums. Lot o money was made. A lot of violent crime was generated.

You ignored my point! Wealth is a magnet for crime--not the same as income! Even if the "government dole" people experience crime doesn't mean those displaying wealth aren't also attracting their own crime wave. IOWs it is very possible that crime hits harder at both ends of the wealth scale.

I also previously pointed out government subsidized housing was a crime magnet! Your "facts" would certainly seem to indicate that is the case. So at the very bottom you have crime. Does that mean the wealth in the Coral Gables doesn't attract violent home invasions? :) In simple terms just because people at one end of the income scale are experiencing crime doesn't mean that people at a certain wealth aren't also experiencing their own violent crime "epidemic."

Do you really need my posts for you screeds? I mean I'm happy to oblige, but it seems to me you are talking about whatever you want, without regard to my posts' content.

From now on I'll just post HEY YABBA YABBA HEY! unnless you actually want a dialog, that way you can still post screeds and I don't need to bother trying to decipher a coherant thought from your screeds.

"Poor people, despite constituting a fraction (less that 10%) of the population are more likely to be victims of crime than the other 90% of the population. That is a fact."

It is? Or is that your interpretation? It seems to me you're confusing wealth with income. Also, do you have any facts showing that people with wealth are suffering less violent property crime? You have the poor--that's one group that could be attracting crime. You have the middle class--that's another group that could be attracting crime. You have the the wealthy--that's another group that could be attracting crime. What is the violent crime difference between the middle class and the wealthy? The same? Less? I say it is more and it is more violent at least here in South Florida.

I don't have family living in the Gables or other nearby areas anymore and I've pretty much stopped reading the local paper the last five years. However, there was a surge of violent home invasion crime directed at those that had wealth. I don't know if that problem has been fixed. I do know that my area which was supposed to be dangerous was nothing compared to what was happening in Gables. A neighbor had a bike stolen from his front yard. In the Gables you had groups of armed men breaking down doors and planning fairly aggressive assaults. It was big news. I also heard different stories about the crime going on over there from my relatives and friends. The poor area D- was much safer. No armed gangs busting in. Maybe a crack addict here or there. No kidnappings over where I live that I'm aware of at least.

Sure post some facts that show wealth isn't a magnet for violent crime. Do you have any facts that show that?

I don't think it is easy to do, but if somehow you could find low income people who didn't have government subsidized housing nearby it would surprise me greatly if their violent property crime rate was anything but very low.

And, in the same general area I would expect the violent property crimes against those with wealth to be much higher than those who just have average wealth or even low wealth!

Let's take an extreme example. If households with an annual income under $7,500 experience violent crime at a rate of 10 per 100 and those housholds with annual incomes of over $750,000 experience violent crime at a rate of 1 per 1000, then that proves wealth isn't a crime magnet?

Right?

I mean people see the extreme wealth and think oh no, he is too wealthy to steal from I better find a poor person. Yep, that wealth just turns off criminals. Essentially, that is what you're saying.

I supplied "facts" that if true supposedly prove your point. Right?

The banks have the same problem. A thief or robber comes in and says oh my god. I can't steal from the bank there is too much wealth here! Let me find a little old lady with a small Social Security check. Too prevent this the little old lady needs to carry a couple hundred thousand to ward off criminals. Those criminal just dislike wealth! It is a fact the government says so!

Of course, the reality is a little more complex. :)

Just my opinion, but the wealthy also have security alarms and security guards and other similar stuff to prevent their wealth from being stolen. The poor steal from other poor because the poor tend to congregate in neighborhoods with other poor people and it costs too much to go to an area rich people live in to steal from them. Plus they probably stick out too much if they did that. Plus it is survival of the fittest and the poor are not the fittest, so poor criminals steal from poor noncriminals.

Hi DandyDan,

What you're saying is correct. Some poor criminals can't even afford the transportation to get them a few miles to Coral Gables. After, the armed gangs started hitting Coral Gables very hard security became a new higher top priority. Private guards, security cameras and alarms, more police, blocked roads to prevent free traffic flow, homeowners buying weaponry, etc. I assume that slow the violent crime wave that hit Coral Gables. Most of these criminals involved in these violent attacks where from outside Coral Gables. Gee, I wonder what could have drawn them outside of their neighborhoods? We have already established that criminals don't like wealth. Wealth can't be a crime magnet. Could it? LOL!

Well, actually just because there is crime inside poor neighborhoods doesn't mean wealth isn't a crime magnet. Of course, then there is a counter response to the crime. Has the Gables been successful with its counter response? In a way probably especially if you enjoy living under heavy security, which many people do. But, I don't know because I've lost touch with what is happening in Coral Gables. I know some assholes wanted to turn this area into the New Coral Gables. Fortunately the vast majority of neighbors didn't want any part of that. Coral Gables is wonderful for some people. That doesn't mean you need to export it all over the place like herpes.

Imagine that . . . the dream of exporting the Coral Gables lifestyle failed at least temporarily. I swear I'd rather have 10 crack addicts living nearby than one wealthy asshole. I can already see the wealthy asshole whimpering that the government isn't getting enough money. What is a small amount to him may very well be a lot to the typical wage slave or retired person. We have "Save Our Homes," but it is actually steal our homes as many people are learning too late. :(

jablake, what do your unfounded rantings have to do with this thread? Try to stay on topic. You are embarassing yourself.

Hi parodyman,

It won't be the first time. :) Stripclubs are supposedly crime magnets and thus should be abolished. That is the theme. I pointed that isn't really the case. Stripclubs have been almost totally eliminated except for Angels on W. Dixie Hwy. The neighbors should be dancing for joy. Right? The evil stripclubs bringing all bad elements have pretty much been eliminated. That is the argument. Right?

So help get the thread back on target parodyman! :)

"Just for the record, both these clubs are in a very safe and gentrifying neighborhood. Incidents like these are one reason why I understand when some people say strip clubs can harm a neighborhood, because there is some truth to that."

OK, here was the main point of the original post. Stipclubs can harm a neighborhood. As an example some bartender was set on fire in a strip club---proves strip clubs can harm a neighborhood. I pointed that some old man living in a condo hired some thugs to pour sulfuric acid on a middle age man---the man suffered for a month and died. No strip clubs nearby just a bunch condos. Thus, this proves condos can harm a neighborhood!

See the analogy? Stripclub patron set a man on fire. Strips then equal bad! Condo dweller hires thugs to dump sulfuric acid on a man. Condos then equal bad!

Get it parodyman? Is so then we can proceed point by point. :) I enjoy your all of your post btw and wish we had more like you. I don't embarrass easy so don't worry about that. :)

Here is another analogy proving that Mercedes Benzes harm a neighborhood. In Coral Gables a man foolishly parked his car in front of his home. No security gates, no cameras, no nothing. I think a street might have been blocked off. So he and his wife had a nice dinner and watched some TV and prepared for bed. I think it was about 11 PM. Far too late to be going outside especially in an expensive area like Coral Gables. Anyway, the husband wanted to retrieve something from his Mercedes. His wife says NO, it is late and it is time for bed and it is dangerous out there! There had been other recent attacks so she was afraid.

Of course, like a good husband he ignored his wife. Hey, gotta give credit where credit is due. :) So he goes out to his Mercedes and meets a hail of gunfire getting killed and more importantly putting his neighbors at risk. I definitely support banning Mercedes and other like magnets of trouble, btw! ;) So the thugs take the dead or dying husband's keys and steal the Mercedes. I think there was a church nearby so ban churches as well-- there is no question they bring undesirables to a neighborhood. No stripclubs nearby so they don't need to get banned! :) Yet. :(

It should be clear that expensive cars draw sick and violent individuals to the neighborhood. Thus, expensive cars need to be banned. Besides it wasn't an environmentally friendly car. Not only was the dead husband putting his neighbors at risk harming his neighborhood HE WAS KILLING THE PLANET!!! Karma strikes again?

Sorry to join in late but I just got back to this board after traveling. Anyway, I think you have to distinguish between professional criminals and others - professionals will target wealthy areas, but that's a very small portion of total crime, most of which is poor drug addicts targeting those who live nearby, in other words poor areas. They don't go to wealthy areas bacause they have no easy way of getting there and the risk of getting caught is high.

When clubbing I've always preferred visiting clubs in rural or suburban areas during the afternoon or early evening and avoiding alcohol. I've never had or seen a problem when doing this. In fact the only time I ever had a problem (and it was fairly minor) was a time that I had violated 2 of those 3 preferences. IMO, if you drink heavily late at night in a city you're asking for trouble, whether you do so in a strip club or regular bar.

Fondl,

It is professional to gun a man down in his driveway to steal a Mercedes?

I do see your point. But, these armed gangs generally didn't seem too swift. Just relied on violence. That doesn't sound very professional either, btw.

Of course, I'm sure some had elaborate plans like mission impossible. :) I would definitely think that was the minority.

jablake, the only remotely coherant argument you made was that wealth and income aren't the same thing, but unless you can show me somehow that those with incomes under $7500/year (which is significantly under what is considered "poverty" level income in this country) are somehow holders of great sums of wealth in other areas you are just not making a good faith argument. Yes, anecdotally rich people suffer property crimes, which are usually highly publicized. The overwhelming number of crime victims, especially violent crime victims, are poor.

Some buisnesses, strip clubs included, are often a local center of problems. That is a fact that we should recognize. We on this board should understand that people who don't like our hobby aren't all prudes and radical feminists. Sometimes they are just people who don't want rowdy frat boys and drunk horny guys running around the neighborhood, let alone the more marginal types who decide to take revenge for being tossed out by burning someone alive.

Well, at least you agree income and wealth aren't one and the same. Drug dealers often officially have household incomes far less than $7,500 per year. But, yet their wealth if they flaunt it is like a crime magnet. Furthermore, even if the poor suffered more attacks than the rich per capita that in NO way means that wealth isn't a crime magnet.

For example, I believe overcrowding thanks to government "free" housing contributes substantially to violent crime. Furthermore, this violent crime may have little to do with property and theft is merely incidental or "invented" i.e. insurance needs, police needs, etc.

Thus, overcrowding could be one crime magnet, wealth another crime magnet, illegal drugs yet another crime magnet, frailness yet another crime magnet, and the list goes on.

These people who aren't prudes, radical feminists, religious nuts, etc. they will be happier when the frat boys and drunk horny guys start throwing parties where they live? That is more of a problem than strip clubs by far. And, things get nasty as neighbors start calling police on neighbors. As I said before along W. Dixie Hwy it was a strip club mecca. Religious and government attack has reduced it to one single remaining strip club. Do you think the neighborhood improved? NW 7th Avenue was heaven for small erotic massage parlors and those are all gone.

Really do you think the neighborhood improved?

I mean all those evil strip clubs save for one were shuttered. All the neighbors in theory should dancing singing the praises of the heroic government. All the massage parlors closed. Again, it should be heaven on earth with happy neighbors praising the government. Those degenerates now have to find their pleasure else where . . . the local schools? Publix? The mall?

Anyway, even if there was some overflow trouble from the strip clubs I don't see that is much different than the problems caused by motor vehicles. What is it some 40,000 killed in automobile accidents annually. Freedom and fun do have costs. How many are killed by alcohol or worse Burger King. My family on one side cannot handle alcohol. They just can't handle it and would be far better off in a society that had extreme taboos on alcohol and heavy duty sentences---can't imagine any of them would volunteer for that. More fun to drink themselves to death then have someone making the choices for them.

So you think the crime magnets in those poor neighborhoods are the drug dealers? So apparently people are lining up to rob them? I assume then that they also report those crimes so that they are in the crime statistics I cited. Sorry, no sale. Criminals prey on the weak, the old, and those they feel can't fight back, either by themselves or through a proxy.

As for the other arguments, I've heard them all, but somehow I can't bring myself to condemn someone who doesn't want a strip club across the street and a frat house next door to where he lives.

As for the overcrowing, if that were the case, the upper east side and upper west side of Manhatten (near Central Park) should be among the highest crime areas in the nation, and south central LA, all bungalows and small units, should be among the lowest compared to other cities.

Really easy to condemn them when the strip clubs were there before they moved in. It is like me moving next door to a church and then complaining about all the traffic and noise generated on Sunday and during the evening services during the week. Those Haitians love to pray non-stop and evidently need a church to do it in.

What is the condition of the overcrowding? Is it like the filth I saw the government put up in the inner city? Talk about nasty cheap construction--huge cracks for rodents, leaking roofs, undersized toilets, everything done to make you sick to your stomach. What is the status of the people living there? Are they being attacked by the government? Being denied fair paying jobs? Do they have a safety net? It is just like wealth being a crime magnet, other factors can come into play. Coral Gables after numerous home invasions by armed thugs started changing the game. Block streets, high security fences, alarms, videos, private gaurds, purchase of firearms, etc. Just because you can take precautions doesn't make wealth a non-crime magnet.

A ton violence is thanks to government drug laws. Yes, sir. It destroys everything. The profit needs to be taken of the drug business. I believe that during prohibition of the 20's the violence skyrocketed in the cities thanks to governments' war and that was a fairly limited war in that ordinary citizens i.e. consumers weren't target for government attack and imprisonment. It was the sellers who had to be afraid, but with all the profits that drug war provided it was worth fighting.

"Really easy to condemn them when the strip clubs were there before they moved in."

Why do you assume that? It wasn't anywhere in what I talked about. What about the hypothetical I proposed about residents opposing a stripclub opening in their neighborhood?

"What is the condition of the overcrowding? Is it like the filth I saw the government put up in the inner city? Talk about nasty cheap construction--huge cracks for rodents, leaking roofs, undersized toilets, everything done to make you sick to your stomach. What is the status of the people living there?"

POVERTY, that is kind of my point.

"A ton violence is thanks to government drug laws. "

I don't want to go too deep into this, but a ton of violence is due to drug trade. There are gangs who will gut a man over a few hundred dollars. You can argue that it is due to drugs being illegal, the libertarian in me has some sympathy to that argument, but I just do not believe that the dealers who are willing to kill another human being over a few hundred dollars would suddenly be model citicens if their trade was legal.

I assume that because that is what happened to the strip clubs I'm familar with. Stop a new club from opening is a different story to some extent. I can see people getting pissed with a regular bar opening up in their neighborhood. Depends where it is located. Even if you open in the middle of an industrial section I can imagine some neighbors getting pissed. Unless the club is very close by I think it is more about some people forcing their beliefs on others.

As far as model citizens. Some cops who knew me, viewed me as a model citizen--a great guy they wouldn't even mind having over for dinner or to watch the game on tv. :) Others--different culture-- thought I was just a thug. In the eye of the beholder . . .

Yeah, nice equivocation. I didn't ask about perceptions as the determining factor, it is about people who will kill for $100, not about how you or someone else is percieved by the cops. The problem with people who murder is that they murder, not that someone sees them as murderers.

Yes, it is that someone sees them as murderers and other see them as freedom fighters or as brothers or even victims!

Even as to the reason they're killing people is a matter of perception. Was it just a $100 at stake? Or, honor? Or, VENGENANCE and RAGE? Or, land (turf)? Or, culture? Heck, dear leader supposedly thinks or thought the terrorists did 911 because they're jealous of our freedoms e.g. strip clubs--if only they had stripclubs, 911 could have been avoided? Or, maybe if their women were allowed to wear bikinis?

The Wall Street Journal had the idiocy that one man's terrorist is another man's terrorist. That nonsense was spouted a few times in their editorials. And, I've seen it spouted on chat boards. Who knows maybe you or people reading this believe that one man's terrorist is another man's terrorist. So if some people in the Middle East happen to think our dear leader is a terrorist then we all have to consider him a terrorist . . ..

So you believe one man's murder is another man's murderer? :) For example, a large man threatens and attacks me and my complaints to the police and courts are ignored. After a few beatings and broken bones and ignored warnings to him and the authorities that this must stop, I put a bullet in the large man's head killing him. Some people would consider that murder other's would consider it long over due self defense. It is perception or values or . . .

Not too long ago the law was changed here in Florida so you can gun someone down without needing to retreat.

Unfortunately, I think that law was necessary due to court decisions, imo, that really took away a person's right of self-defense. I wouldn't trust a judge to tell me if it is a Monday or a Friday----worse than a used car salesman by far and they have such a strong incentive to be corrupt or maybe the power just corrupts in and of itself. :(

No, the problem is that they kill people, often innocent people. If they kill people for pride or honor is that a better excuse than $100? What insult does it take to pride or honor where kiling is justified?

HEY YABBA YABBA HEY!

Oh, yes killing isn't the problem for most people. It is the reason for the killing that is important.

Even those who claim to be against killing may be ardent supporters of the death penalty or the current president. And, killing innocents isn't a big deal as long as you label them something like collateral damage.

The insult could be as minor a pat on the butt. That is more than enough reason under the right circumstances or the wrong glance. On the one side of my family it isn't a pretty picture and I believe it is genetic. Some people would say NO it is the booze. Yes, booze is a problem. Cancer is a problem. Temper is a problem. Lack of compassion is a problem. Being soldiers who have a war to fight would probably be an excellent environment. Need bravery? Need a willingness to kill the bad guy? A willingness to follow orders to the death to protect the country? IOWs, it isn't completely negative. You could perceive a lot of good depending on what you value. In a foxhole you'd probably be thrilled to have them fighting next to you. The mentality is different.

So are you really opposed to killing? Or, there is a lot of wiggle room? I've met people who are truly against killing and that is a minority view. Usually, they're just against the "bad" guy killing but the "good" guy can kill because the law authorizes it or there is a war or he was defending his property or the victims are the wrong color or religion. IOWs, shades of gray.

A good example would be Tucker--a black slave. I think that is the name. He killed men, women, children, and babies. Is he a bad man? A freedom fighter? A hero? All of the above?

So are you that rare bird who is just anti-killing people pretty much no exceptions or wiggle? If so, WOW! :)

I remember this young man he was so innocent and loving it was like he needed his head examined. He said he didn't think he could kill even to protect his own life. Life is precious, he said.

At first I thought he had to be joking. Yes, he was very sweet guy. It just shocked me to point of total disbelief. He placed an extreme value on human life. He wasn't opposed to other people protecting themselves by using deadly force, but he didn't think he could do it just to save himself. Killing is just so wrong on so many levels, he said. He was opposed to the death penalty. Not shocking, but consistent with his belief in the value of human life. He needed medical help, imo. :) President Bush is a welcomed relief in comparison--shoot first and forget about the questions. :)

Let me just add one thought that may or may not be relevant. The so-called "drug problem" in this country is really 2 separate problems: the health issues and money/crime. Vast sums of money can be made from selling drugs even by small-timers because they are illegal and therefore expensive. This produces 2 results: sellers resorting to violence to lessen competition, and users committing crimes to fund their habits. Legalize drugs, make them available inexpensively, and much of the money/crime problem will diminish. Which may or may not increase the health drug-related health problems.

I happen to think that much of the appeal of drugs stems from them being illegal but that's obviously just an opinion. But at least our prohibition experience indicates that there's some validity to this argument - alcohol consumption increased dramatically during and after prohibition. In any event, by taxing durgs much like we do alcoholic beverages, funds could be made availabe to address the health issues way beyond what we're currently doing.

To me there are strong arguments in favor of legalizing drugs. I happen to think that our current drug laws are stupid and are a major cause of much of our crime problem. I also think addiction should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Our cost of incarcerating addicts is enormous.

Unfortunately, I think a very strong argument can be made for even tougher more blood thirsty drug laws. :( When I was a lot younger I believed in the drug laws as applied to women and minorities in order to help them. The whole purpose was to help those who needed and wanted government help -- not by sending them to be abused in prisons, but to get treatment. Dealers needed to be dealt with more harshly. To include white males would be extremely insulting and the norm was that white males wanted far less government, not more of it. Essentially, give more government to those that are in love with it and less to those who prefer to be left alone.

Of course, that was a very narrow view. Plenty of white males elsewhere were also in love with more government and I wouldn't want to deny them so hell, extend the benefits to those white males who also love more government.

Every time I hear the argument to tax it as if that were a benefit, I cringe. Yes, the government can do wonderful things that isn't the point. The point isn't even the financial cost. It is more cultural. Like Bork says freedom is controlling your neighbors via force of law and it is an important freedom. You may not give a damn about freedom from unreasonable searches, but be in love with idea that government can randomly search everyones homes at any time to search for drugs, guns, terrorists, whatever. In Bork's mind that is a freedom people shouldn't be denied. President Clinton was bragging about welfare moms who supposedly loved the idea of government conducting random searches of peoples homes because it was for health and safety. Only crazies don't love the government. President Clinton even commented on how radical the writers of Constitution were and that now we view the government more positively to protect people.

I can see Bork's point of view. I don't think there is anything magical about democracy. But government wants to search peoples homes randomly well that is just another freedom. Government wants to close strip clubs well gee that is just another freedom. And, of course not only do you get more freedom from government you get health and safety and jobs.

Jablake, I would reply, but I find your posts utterly incoherant. Not only do you not seem to never comprehend, even if you read my posts, your "answers" seem unconnected to anything in the post other than quoting me. Your posts also don't seem to agree with themselves, let alone make sense. I'm sorry to not reply, if it seems rude, and my guess is that my description of your posts does, it's really just that for the life of me I can't figure out what you are talking about. Are you a native English speaker?

Back on topic, the suspect was arrested, he was also severly burned. It turns out that the suspect apparently tried to re-enter the club with a gas can to burn the whole place down. The manager tried to stop him, and in the ensuing struggle gas was spilled, a great deal on the manager, some on the suspect, and much on the floor. walls, etc. When the lighter was lit the manager was caught in the worst of the flames, the suspect was severly burned but managed to flee the scene. The manager is still in critical condition, his chances of recovery are reported as 80%.

The club re-opened Wednesday.

I want to know how someone buys a gas can, a gallon of gas, and a lighter at a gas station without raising enough interest for the clerk to remember the dude. The police aparently found the suspect based on a tip that a man with burns and a lot of medical supplies was in a motel in Virginia.

AN, re your penultimate post, that makes two of us.

(whew, so it's not just me.)

I certainly agree with AbbieNormal and chandler about Jablake. I wonder if he has a screw loose.

I also agree with FONDL about the drug policy. I have long thought the appeal of illegal drugs is their sheer illegality. I can't imagine why I'd want to snort white powder up my nose otherwise, not that I ever have. It doesn't seem like something I would want to do, but if people want to do it, and they don't want to be productive members of society, why should the government stop them? They should legalize all drugs, but regulate it, too. It makes you wonder if the government isn't secretly involved.

Hi,

IRL, some people consider me insane. :) Given the history on one side of my family, especially as they got older, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

But, it is also a question of perception and or culture. For example, I've known this lady for over a decade and she has advanced degrees and a high income and goes to church and seems normal. Other people seem to like her as well. The most unusual thing is that she likes me. Perhaps that means she isn't as normal as she appears to be.

Anyway, she wanted me to help on some small project. I said NO, a relative is going to be visiting and we are going to meet with some friends. I will help you on an earlier or later date if that is OK with you. Oh no, she wants to meet my relative. :( I explain it is from the wrong side of the family and she doesn't want meet any of them!

Finally, I cave in to her and invite her along, but ask that she please not complain afterward. She says she isn't going to complain and that there is probably nothing "wrong" with my relative or friends. So she meets them and thinks they're insane and nasty. :(

I told her, well some people consider me insane and nasty. She laughs and says the only thing insane about me is that I'm too nice and go to stripclubs.

So here is the bottom line people. Yes, I could definitely be considered insane but it depends on your values.

As far as the English, I'm not sure. I think besides me omitting words here and there and writing way too much, it is cultural. That may be difficult for you to understand. For example, let's say I'm posting on a chat group where almost everyone is 100% certain that God exists. When questioned I explain that I think God is a big joke, a nothing, a tool to defraud people. Some people will then 1) attack me as being insane and 2) question my writing skills. They might be correct on both counts, however, the main issue is cultural. Were any of you able to figure that out? I mean that as respectfully as possible, btw.

Here is another example. The Wall Street Journal did a few editorials stating that "one man's terrorist is another man's terrorist." If you agree with those editorials, then I would consider you to be a nut job and your opinion of me would be fairly meaningless. BTW, there isn't anything wrong with that! It is cultural and also if you believe in the concept of "one man's terrorist is another man's terrorist," then the chance you will ever understand what I write is fairly slim to none. Therefore, you should just continue to consider me to be an insane person who can't write English. :)

"I have long thought the appeal of illegal drugs is their sheer illegality. I can't imagine why I'd want to snort white powder up my nose otherwise, not that I ever have. It doesn't seem like something I would want to do, but if people want to do it, and they don't want to be productive members of society, why should the government stop them? They should legalize all drugs, but regulate it, too. It makes you wonder if the government isn't secretly involved."

I consider the quote, supra, to be INSANE!!! :) Of course, I could be 100% incorrect. People are using the drugs because their illegal? Could be, but I think that would be a small minority of users. Again, I could be wrong.

For example: People smoke cigarettes even though it's legal. If smoking cigarettes were to become illegal, then more people would smoke? Sounds INSANE, but who knows that might somehow be the case. Not only does it sound insane, it sounds brain dead. But, again that is just my perception and I could be 100% incorrect. If I gave the issue more thought and research then I might end up changing my opinion.

When you make anything for which there is demand illegal, you force it undergound so that supply is controlled by criminals. Which typically makes the situation worse not better. Prostitution is an obvious example. So are drugs.

I think most strip clubs are pretty safe places because there are almost always cops around. Cops often stop by to check out what's going on and they get to know management and some of the girls. And off-duty cops are a major customer group in many clubs.

Hi FONDL,

I think drugs should be decriminalized, but it makes little different to me one way or the other. My point was there are strong arguments for not only keeping drugs illegal, but for the government to act in a more draconian fashion. Chop of the limb or limbs of drug users and or sellers? That might work. If that became the governments' policy, then I think most people to be patriotic would support it or pretty much any government policy.

Legal drugs are a serious health issue. I think recreational heroin use and more importantly abuse would increase if it were legal. I don't know that for a fact, but it seems like making it legal might have the affect of making it socially acceptable and perhaps even mainstream. I can just see different brands of heroin being advertised featuring hot women and fast cars. Of course, making some drugs legal might help reduce their demand by killing the customer too quickly.

One of the most frightening drugs imo is glue and the high is excellent! :( I learned it was good by accident when a friend let me help him make a model of some type. A couple kids that were even slower than the normal children were bragging about the cheap high. Within a couple weeks their brains were like blank slates. I attributed it, rightly or wrongly to their admitted use of glue as a cheap high. One positive effect was that other kids wanted nothing to do with glue despite the excellent high. If I had, had any interest in glue, then witness those 2 kids become like zombies almost overnight killed it like a roach drinking Raid.