L. Brooks: "I Don't Want to End Sprawl. I Love it."

[iheartthed]

Well, I've either lived in Detroit or worked in Detroit nearly every day for pretty much the past two decades. Sometimes the eye test goes a long way, so I'm certainly being subjective. If you want to say crime in and of itself isn't THE reason why Detroit has lost so much population, OK, but that doesn't really say much. My opinion is that crime is the NUMBER ONE reason.

By the way, the murder rate in Detroit as per those charts has always been much, much higher. Also, New York rates from 1995 went below 1,000 [[note that the population jumped by 700,000 between 1995-2000), except for 2004, when that chart says the rate was 1,740 in Detroit, all of the other years from 1995 the rates were over 2,000. So I'd say at least double the violent crime rate [[and about 4 times the violent crime rate in 2005) does have something to do with it.

I wonder if whatever contributed to the growth in NYC's population during the high crime era also contributed to the crime rate falling?

The following is my personal opinion and is nothing that I will not try to substantiate with any data: As someone who has lived in both New York and Detroit, I think the crime card is completely overplayed in both places. On one hand, I think the stats that NYC actually reports to the FBI are cooked. Granted, not as bad as Detroit, but I have a hard time believing that New York is "safer" than Des Moines, Iowa, which is what the stats suggest. On the other hand, I think crime is the crutch that the Detroit area uses to justify status quo. If you compare downtown Detroit to Midtown Manhattan, I'm beyond certain that the crime stats are similar if not favorable to Detroit.

I'm also certain that reinvestment into the urban core, attracting migrants to the city with immigrant friendly policies and a world class transit system has done far more to improve the situation in New York than any stop-and-frisk-policy [[a policy that is on the verge of starting a race/class riot). My own inclination is that lack of access to opportunity for self-improvement is far more of a deterrent to population growth than is crime [[and lack of access to opportunity and crime are probably related). If yours is a major city that does not have a good transit system then your city is severely limiting access to opportunity.

I grew up in Detroit and have family members who live there to this day. I had never been victim of a crime in Detroit or anywhere else that I lived in Michigan. But I became a victim of a crime within a month of moving to New York. That did not deter me at all from living in New York.

Do I discount that crime is an issue in Detroit? No, absolutely not. I know people who have been victims of crimes in Detroit. I knew the young lady who was murdered for her purse outside of the bar last month. But for all of the ink spent on crime in Detroit almost none is spent on any of the other deficiencies that plague the city equally or more greatly.

[Detroitnerd]

Yeah, the crime card gets played disingenuously around here. I'd add to that schools as well.

"The problems in Detroit are crime and schools. We don't have those problems out here because we have the means to pay for police and to raise our young people in good schools. And in Detroit, they don't care about their safety or their children, because if they did, they wouldn't choose to live there.

"But if they were to tackle those problems of crime and schools -- and by they I mean the people poor enough to remain in the city despite the fact that if they knew what was good for them would have moved to our glorious suburbs -- then I'd move into the city in a heartbeat.

"Well, maybe not. Actually, hell no. Even if they fixed that stuff, I wouldn't want to move down there. Don't get me wrong. I wish them well. I hope they solve their problems. But they better do it without a penny of my money. In fact, I would spend MORE in taxes to ensure they didn't get any of my money at all.

"And then you freeway-hating, suburb-baiting, ghetto-loving people blame us in the SUBURBS for the problems of Detroit! How dare you! It's obvious that the problems of Detroit are directly traceable to their decision to be poor. It's ludicrous that any of us is to blame! They want to be poor and live in a hellhole of crime and illiteracy? They've made their choice."

--Frank Rizzo, suburban Detroit resident

[j to the jeremy]

Yeah, the crime card gets played disingenuously around here. I'd add to that schools as well.

"The problems in Detroit are crime and schools. We don't have those problems out here because we have the means to pay for police and to raise our young people in good schools. And in Detroit, they don't care about their safety or their children, because if they did, they wouldn't choose to live there.

"But if they were to tackle those problems of crime and schools -- and by they I mean the people poor enough to remain in the city despite the fact that if they knew what was good for them would have moved to our glorious suburbs -- then I'd move into the city in a heartbeat.

"Well, maybe not. Actually, hell no. Even if they fixed that stuff, I wouldn't want to move down there. Don't get me wrong. I wish them well. I hope they solve their problems. But they better do it without a penny of my money. In fact, I would spend MORE in taxes to ensure they didn't get any of my money at all.

"And then you freeway-hating, suburb-baiting, ghetto-loving people blame us in the SUBURBS for the problems of Detroit! How dare you! It's obvious that the problems of Detroit are directly traceable to their decision to be poor. It's ludicrous that any of us is to blame! They want to be poor and live in a hellhole of crime and illiteracy? They've made their choice."

--Frank Rizzo, suburban Detroit resident

At the risk of sounding like a pot smoking train lover, we have to chat in person sometime- i've been relying on you for the accurate sarcasm and roasts around here lately

[stasu1213]

L Brooks is probably pulling Bing's and some members of the council's strings by having them to make cuts and force businesses and people to move into Oakland County

[stromberg2]

Jerm, Nerd is a hoot, he has me laughing out loud alot......and he's spot on, too!

Stromberg2

[Dexlin]

Yeah, the crime card gets played disingenuously around here. I'd add to that schools as well.

"The problems in Detroit are crime and schools. We don't have those problems out here because we have the means to pay for police and to raise our young people in good schools. And in Detroit, they don't care about their safety or their children, because if they did, they wouldn't choose to live there.

"But if they were to tackle those problems of crime and schools -- and by they I mean the people poor enough to remain in the city despite the fact that if they knew what was good for them would have moved to our glorious suburbs -- then I'd move into the city in a heartbeat.

"Well, maybe not. Actually, hell no. Even if they fixed that stuff, I wouldn't want to move down there. Don't get me wrong. I wish them well. I hope they solve their problems. But they better do it without a penny of my money. In fact, I would spend MORE in taxes to ensure they didn't get any of my money at all.

"And then you freeway-hating, suburb-baiting, ghetto-loving people blame us in the SUBURBS for the problems of Detroit! How dare you! It's obvious that the problems of Detroit are directly traceable to their decision to be poor. It's ludicrous that any of us is to blame! They want to be poor and live in a hellhole of crime and illiteracy? They've made their choice."

--Frank Rizzo, suburban Detroit resident

Oh buddy, that was good.

[bartock]

Only in Detroit...

The point is that crime was a symptom of the policies started in the 1950s. The first "white flight" didn't happen because of crime. It happened because of racist real estate policies, highway construction, and the results of "slum clearance" with no replacement housing built. It also happened because there was a housing shortage in Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s caused by massive urban renewal projects that displaced lots of people. FHA mortgages went disproportionally to white folks in new homes, and the riots and subsequent crack years only added exponentially to a cycle that was already in place.

You should read some books about this subject.

I don't hate suburbs, but I do think sprawl has been useless IN MICHIGAN since the 1970s at least. A state with a stagnant population only needs new construction when THE EXISTING infrastructure is maintained and adequate. We shouldn't have a homeless problem in a city of vacant houses.

There are plenty of threads regarding what caused what caused what caused what caused THIS...I'm speaking about THIS, not what caused THIS.

[bartock]

Exactly--an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Scholars, such as Sugrue, have tracked Detroit's decline and examined the interrelated factors and the hard data that goes along with them. If crime were the primary cause of urban flight, then you would expect to see sprawling suburban growth lagging increases in crime. An examination of the data shows that growth in the crime rate actually lags flight to the suburbs and urban disinvestment in Detroit. Ergo, crime is a resulting symptom, not a cause.

If crime were the primary factor in disinvestment in Detroit and flight to the suburbs, then how does one explain urban flight in other cities? Was there some instantaneous cultural shift where crime exploded in ever major Northeastern and Midwestern city at the same time, causing everyone of means to flee en masse?

Crime hasn't stoppped young, educated, talented people from moving to New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, or DC--all of which, like Detroit, were once given up for dead. I suppose those cities have "solved" crime???

I'm sure Sugrue would agree with you...or is it the other way around?

[bartock]

[

QUOTE=Detroitnerd;303959]Yeah, the crime card gets played disingenuously around here. I'd add to that schools as well.

You ought to read that again. This is the most utterly ridiculous statement I've ever read here. It's actually pretty sad.

"The problems in Detroit are crime and schools. We don't have those problems out here because we have the means to pay for police and to raise our young people in good schools. And in Detroit, they don't care about their safety or their children, because if they did, they wouldn't choose to live there.

"But if they were to tackle those problems of crime and schools -- and by they I mean the people poor enough to remain in the city despite the fact that if they knew what was good for them would have moved to our glorious suburbs -- then I'd move into the city in a heartbeat.

"Well, maybe not. Actually, hell no. Even if they fixed that stuff, I wouldn't want to move down there. Don't get me wrong. I wish them well. I hope they solve their problems. But they better do it without a penny of my money. In fact, I would spend MORE in taxes to ensure they didn't get any of my money at all.

"And then you freeway-hating, suburb-baiting, ghetto-loving people blame us in the SUBURBS for the problems of Detroit! How dare you! It's obvious that the problems of Detroit are directly traceable to their decision to be poor. It's ludicrous that any of us is to blame! They want to be poor and live in a hellhole of crime and illiteracy? They've made their choice."

--Frank Rizzo, suburban Detroit resident

[/QUOTE]

This is neat-o attempt at sounding clever while pressing an agenda, but at best it is about 20 years old. Ask those folks who have streamed out of the East Side now-prarie and into the inner-ring suburbs. You aren't gonna hear and of this elitist crap you are spewing ostensibly on their behalf, and you sure as shit ain't gonna come across many Frank Rizzos.

But it certainly works as far as pandering goes. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

[bartock]

I wonder if whatever contributed to the growth in NYC's population during the high crime era also contributed to the crime rate falling?

The following is my personal opinion and is nothing that I will not try to substantiate with any data: As someone who has lived in both New York and Detroit, I think the crime card is completely overplayed in both places. On one hand, I think the stats that NYC actually reports to the FBI are cooked. Granted, not as bad as Detroit, but I have a hard time believing that New York is "safer" than Des Moines, Iowa, which is what the stats suggest. On the other hand, I think crime is the crutch that the Detroit area uses to justify status quo. If you compare downtown Detroit to Midtown Manhattan, I'm beyond certain that the crime stats are similar if not favorable to Detroit.

I'm also certain that reinvestment into the urban core, attracting migrants to the city with immigrant friendly policies and a world class transit system has done far more to improve the situation in New York than any stop-and-frisk-policy [[a policy that is on the verge of starting a race/class riot). My own inclination is that lack of access to opportunity for self-improvement is far more of a deterrent to population growth than is crime [[and lack of access to opportunity and crime are probably related). If yours is a major city that does not have a good transit system then your city is severely limiting access to opportunity.

I grew up in Detroit and have family members who live there to this day. I had never been victim of a crime in Detroit or anywhere else that I lived in Michigan. But I became a victim of a crime within a month of moving to New York. That did not deter me at all from living in New York.

Do I discount that crime is an issue in Detroit? No, absolutely not. I know people who have been victims of crimes in Detroit. I knew the young lady who was murdered for her purse outside of the bar last month. But for all of the ink spent on crime in Detroit almost none is spent on any of the other deficiencies that plague the city equally or more greatly.

I don't think there is enough ink spent on crime in Detroit, frankly. But, I should have included schools are well. It certainly appears that midtown will reach a tipping point [[if not there already), and the 15,000 by 2015 initiative may actually happen. Problem is, that is a real small slice of the city, and it is starting to take care of itself. It is [[mostly) the area between the inner-core of Detroit and the inner-ring suburbs that will continue to be the problem, in my opinion.


Buy hey, at least we can reasonably discuss it.

[Detroitnerd]

This is neat-o attempt at sounding clever while pressing an agenda

It's called satire, bartock. Also, it's a way to blow off some steam, to laugh a little while we look at the problems we face.

but at best it is about 20 years old.

Judging by the comments I read on the Free Press and Detroit News sites, this is very current. It's not the same as the old slam-bang racism of a generation ago, I agree, but that's what the "crime card" or the "schools card" are: Hot-button issues that sound serious but telegraph that old-time, slam-bang racism. And what was racism but a way of consigning people to substandard lives that you thought they deserved? It dovetails to me quite cleanly. But what was the cause? Was it people who wanted to create a hellhole of crime and illiteracy? Or was it the larger culture that withheld any assistance or investment and watched it happen?

Ask those folks who have streamed out of the East Side now-prarie and into the inner-ring suburbs.

I know some people who've left Detroit late, and I feel sorry for them the most. They wanted to stay and couldn't. But, you see, it all breaks down to the same political problem, which is essentially a problem of circuitous logic: We can't help the city, because the city is a lost cause. Why is it a lost cause? Because it can't be helped! Those people who can't afford to leave? They have to stop the crime. They need resources to stop the crime? They should have thought of that before they decided to live there!

You aren't gonna hear and of this elitist crap you are spewing ostensibly on their behalf, and you sure as shit ain't gonna come across many Frank Rizzos.

Elitist? This is standard-issue, white, working-class horseshit. I've heard it my whole life. The bad old version and the upgraded nonracial version. I guarantee you, knocking on suburban doors, you'll meet your fair share of Frank Rizzos. Very angry, economically insecure people who've had to work hard for their modest house and small lawn, and look upon the "other" with suspicion. Of course, you can't be an out-and-out racist, so the Frank Rizzos of the world code their racism in terms of "property values" and "crime" and "schools" and "families."

But it certainly works as far as pandering goes. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Actually, I think we've created a coinage. As of now, a certain number of people on this board understand what a "Frank Rizzo" is. At least that's something.

[antongast]

Elitist? This is standard-issue, white, working-class, horseshit. I've heard it my whole life. The bad old version and the upgraded nonracial version. I guarantee you, knocking on suburban doors, you'll meet your fair share of Frank Rizzos. Very angry, economically insecure people who've had to work hard for their modest house and small lawn, and look upon the "other" with suspicion. Of course, you can't be an out-and-out racist, so the Frank Rizzos of the world code their racism in terms of "property values" and "crime" and "schools" and "families."

There's an awful lot of it right here on DetroitYes. Actually, I see more of it on DetroitYes than this supposed knee-jerk anti-suburbanism that everybody's always frothing about.

[j to the jeremy]

I hear loads of it in the suburbs, and loads of it on here. The only difference is that it usually takes a beer to coax it out of someone in person

[bartock]

There's an awful lot of it right here on DetroitYes. Actually, I see more of it on DetroitYes than this supposed knee-jerk anti-suburbanism that everybody's always frothing about.

Since we're rolling with this Frank Rizzo thing, again, for the last 20 years, most of the "Frank Rizzo's" leaving Detroit aren't white. Are the hundreds of thousands of black folks who have moved out of Detroit over the past 20 years Frank Rizzos, or does that only apply to the white people who have decided to leave?

And, ironically, the knee-jerk anti-suburbanism [[which is WAY more prominent than the other) on this board is usually done by those who identify themselves as young white foks living in the city, and who may very well become the Frank Rizzos they stereotype in 10 years.

And this may come as a shock to some, but accurately identifying a place with high crime and poor schools that, well, has high crime and poor school IS NOT a racist observation, or thinly-veiled racial observation. [[I know, can you believe it?)

...I've always given DNerd some props for at least sticking by his guns, though they sometimes leave me scratching [[or banging) my head. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I can respect it.

[antongast]

Since we're rolling with this Frank Rizzo thing, again, for the last 20 years, most of the "Frank Rizzo's" leaving Detroit aren't white. Are the hundreds of thousands of black folks who have moved out of Detroit over the past 20 years Frank Rizzos, or does that only apply to the white people who have decided to leave?

Extract the nudges and winks from Detroitnerd's post, and the attitude is one that I encounter quite commonly. Not everyone who has ever moved out of Detroit espouses this attitude, and not everyone who espouses this attitude has moved out of Detroit. Some have never lived in the city at all. Some still live here. In my experience, most people who espouse this attitude are white, and their attitudes about Detroit are very often tied up with their attitudes about poor black people generally, but neither of these are absolutes, and I'm sure you could find a black person somewhere who has nothing but contempt for Detroit and its people.

And, ironically, the knee-jerk anti-suburbanism [[which is WAY more prominent than the other) on this board is usually done by those who identify themselves as young white foks living in the city, and who may very well become the Frank Rizzos they stereotype in 10 years.

Ah, the trusty they'll-come-around-when-they-grow-up line. Your condescension is appreciated.

And this may come as a shock to some, but accurately identifying a place with high crime and poor schools that, well, has high crime and poor school IS NOT a racist observation, or thinly-veiled racial observation. [[I know, can you believe it?)

Not by itself it isn't, no. But lots of people cite those facts as evidence for conclusions that are heavily informed by their views on race.

[bartock]

Ah, the trusty they'll-come-around-when-they-grow-up line. Your condescension is appreciated.

"They'll come around..." It isn't condenscension. Shit, it's about the only thing getting older is good for...experience.

Not by itself it isn't, no. But lots of people cite those facts as evidence for conclusions that are heavily informed by their views on race.

[/QUOTE]

Fair point.

[ghettopalmetto]

And this may come as a shock to some, but accurately identifying a place with high crime and poor schools that, well, has high crime and poor school IS NOT a racist observation, or thinly-veiled racial observation. [[I know, can you believe it?)

Making those observations is not racist.

But taking observations made at the current moment in time, and then labeling those as the CAUSES of urban flight and disinvestment that began over 60 years ago???--that's just blatant dishonesty on your part.

As Detroitnerd has repeatedly pointed out, your line of reasoning is circular in nature. Did the Whitey Family move out of Detroit in 1946 because of high crime and poor schools? Or perhaps, was there a bit more to it than that?

[Hermod]

Did the Whitey Family move out of Detroit in 1946 because of high crime and poor schools? Or perhaps, was there a bit more to it than that?

There were few homes built in Detroit 1930-1945, first because of the depression and then because of the war. The population of Detroit increased significantly during the war years and during the postwar boom. There were a lot of people who were "underhoused" o include married couples living with their parents and couples wanting kids but living in small apartments and flats [[remember the post war baby boom?).

The civilian war workers had made quite a bit of money during the war and couldn't spend it because of government strictures on the production of consumer goods. They could afford a down payment on a house. The returning servicemen had their GI Bill and didn't need a down payment.

During the period 1946-1960, all of the vacant lots in Detroit were filled in and new subdivisions opened in the inner ring suburbs [[David Halberstam's book, "The Fifities" is a good read on this). During this time, the only expressway which went beyond the Detroit city limits was the Ford going out to Willow Run [[Detroit Industrial Freeway).

It was only post-1967, that "white flight" was caused by racial concerns.

[Detroitnerd]

Making those observations is not racist.

But taking observations made at the current moment in time, and then labeling those as the CAUSES of urban flight and disinvestment that began over 60 years ago???--that's just blatant dishonesty on your part.

As Detroitnerd has repeatedly pointed out, your line of reasoning is circular in nature. Did the Whitey Family move out of Detroit in 1946 because of high crime and poor schools? Or perhaps, was there a bit more to it than that?

But in the wild, wacky world of cartwheeling suburban rationalization, the urban ills of today aren't just the reason we'll never invest in the city, they're ALSO the reason people DID disinvest in it 70 years ago, back when everything was wonderful.

It has to do, I think, with the location of the Detroit vortex, which keeps transporting urban ills back to the year 1946...

[Detroitnerd]

There were few homes built in Detroit 1930-1945, first because of the depression and then because of the war. The population of Detroit increased significantly during the war years and during the postwar boom. There were a lot of people who were "underhoused" o include married couples living with their parents and couples wanting kids but living in small apartments and flats [[remember the post war baby boom?).

The civilian war workers had made quite a bit of money during the war and couldn't spend it because of government strictures on the production of consumer goods. They could afford a down payment on a house. The returning servicemen had their GI Bill and didn't need a down payment.

During the period 1946-1960, all of the vacant lots in Detroit were filled in and new subdivisions opened in the inner ring suburbs [[David Halberstam's book, "The Fifities" is a good read on this). During this time, the only expressway which went beyond the Detroit city limits was the Ford going out to Willow Run [[Detroit Industrial Freeway).

It was only post-1967, that "white flight" was caused by racial concerns.

With all due respect, that is the biggest, most steaming pile of horseshit I've ever seen you peddle on this forum. You should know better, as you helped build the expressways as early as 1961. White flight began with the end of racial covenants and the blockbusting of the 1950s and 1960s. There was no racial animus at play when Warren became the third largest city in the state during the 1960s? Or did that happen in a flash in 1968?

[Zaiko]

Hermod,

You have a point. Sugrue tells us about the federal and state governments only giving money for single family, new housing which was only to be found in the suburbs. But this 2001 series by the news was powerful. I think the link is broken now.

But this summary tells about Jews who left Elmhurst because jewish realtors did block busting and fear mongering because there were rumors that a black family was going to move in.

Yes, it's true the riots of '43 would have engendered some legitimate fear of blacks by whites. But whites and blacks were not equals then. Blacks had no upper hand.

Broken Detroit: Death of a City Block, Detroit News, June 17-21, 2001. The Detroit News has produced a series about the decline and abandonment of one block that reads like a true-crime story. The 1967 riots caused the once-thriving neighborhood to suddenly empty out, but white flight had begun long before then, the newspaper says. The result of this long, sad story is a street where so many former homes have been torn down that it has largely become “urban prairie.” http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2001/elmhurst/

[bartock]

Making those observations is not racist.

But taking observations made at the current moment in time, and then labeling those as the CAUSES of urban flight and disinvestment that began over 60 years ago???--that's just blatant dishonesty on your part.

As Detroitnerd has repeatedly pointed out, your line of reasoning is circular in nature. Did the Whitey Family move out of Detroit in 1946 because of high crime and poor schools? Or perhaps, was there a bit more to it than that?

I didn't speak to any causes. My point was to the people that have been moving out of Detroit for the past 20 years, and today. Overwhelmingly black.

It isn't dishonest to not always go back to the same well...at some point you have to move past the white flight of 50, 40, 30, years ago, or even deal with the human flight of the past 20. Improvement in schools and reduction in crime does not require Marty McFly and a time machine. Take away the past and you still have to deal with the present. The question I'm addressing is how to stop it NOW; you want to address how it happened and how to prevent it from happening again, methinks.

[bartock]

But in the wild, wacky world of cartwheeling suburban rationalization, the urban ills of today aren't just the reason we'll never invest in the city, they're ALSO the reason people DID disinvest in it 70 years ago, back when everything was wonderful.

It has to do, I think, with the location of the Detroit vortex, which keeps transporting urban ills back to the year 1946...

Boy you guys are good at twisting and re-shaping arguments into nice little strawmen that you can knock over. I haven't read any of the positions you are purporting to respond to.

[ghettopalmetto]

I didn't speak to any causes. My point was to the people that have been moving out of Detroit for the past 20 years, and today. Overwhelmingly black.

CORRECTION: People have been moving out of Detroit for over 60 years. Prior to that, it was a boomtown. What changed??? Did Detroit have its first-ever incidence of crime in 1946? Did the public schools go to Hell in a Handbasket one Tuesday morning? WHAT?

It isn't dishonest to not always go back to the same well...at some point you have to move past the white flight of 50, 40, 30, years ago, or even deal with the human flight of the past 20.

The factors that caused urban disinvestment to begin STILL exist and have not been addressed. Of course, those factors are more complicated, cumbersome, and expensive to address now that Metropolitan Detroit has allowed, nay ENCOURAGED, poverty to concentrate and fester over the course of 65 years.

Improvement in schools and reduction in crime does not require Marty McFly and a time machine. Take away the past and you still have to deal with the present. The question I'm addressing is how to stop it NOW; you want to address how it happened and how to prevent it from happening again, methinks.

If public schools are the problem, you would think that only the 25% of people who are families would be discouraged from moving to Detroit. Turns out, it's people across ALL race and socioeconomic classes--including young, childless professionals.

If crime was the problem, then you wouldn't expect to see cities with equal [[or worse) crime rates going through gentrification.

You're focused on superficial problems--the resulting symptoms of the disease, if you will. The REAL disease in Detroit is one of economic opportunity. You cure that, and the rest takes care of itself. No bandage or aspirin is going to fix that, no matter how plastic fantastic Ole Brooksie thinks Oakland County might be.

[antongast]

Take away the past and you still have to deal with the present.

Refuse to consider the past and you'll badly misinterpret the present. People generally aren't very good at solving problems they don't fully understand. Everybody wants less crime and better schools, but there are lots of different theories out there about how to accomplish these things, and understanding the lessons and implications of the past is tremendously useful when it comes to deciding which of these theories are workable and grounded in reality, which are well-intentioned but based on misunderstandings, and which are just self-serving horseshit.