He "probably didn't have a chance..."

I don't know what to make of the lead story on the front page of this morning's Boston Sunday Globe:

Crime consumed a family, and an 8-year-old is lost

It was so difficult to read, I had to stop to take a break several times. The very first sentence says it all: "Liquarry A. Jefferson probably didn't have a chance."

I am so saddened... so angry... but I don't even know where to direct my anger. The article points out the fact that our Mayor Menino was quick to blame the gun lobby for the child's death (he was shot accidentally by his 7-year-old cousin)... but this article really exposed the insane world that Jefferson grew up in.

The child had four half-siblings, and all four fathers of the 5 children were in prison at the time of his death... two for drug charges, and two for armed robbery. The gun used in the killing belonged to a 15 year old half-brother, currently in juvenile custody. In 2003, city officials realized 36 individuals, all related to the family, had 200 arraignments between them.

Social services agents met with the children, trying to get them into summer camps, alternative schools, anything to keep them separated from the violence which permeated the family. All while, the father of the youngest child (now in prison for selling crack cocaine) lived in the home and worked to prevent social workers from seeing the children.

The Globe article figures that in the final year of 8-year-old Liquarry's life, various government agencies spent $314,000 on the family, almost half just on prison costs for the four fathers. The other half went mostly to social services, but also to what the Globe called "Administration of Justice." The figure includes an estimated $10,000 on a search for the two armed intruders who Liquarry's mother claimed had shot her child before admitting to officials that the death was an accident.

Anyway - like I said at the beginning of this entry - I just don't know what to make of it all. I'm saddened, angry, and frustrated. I feel lucky that I didn't ever have to experience a world like this... and I wonder if it will ever be possible to eliminate this sort of violence from our society. Is it just inevitable that there will always be violent crime in some segment of the population? Is this the result of someone not trying hard enough to stop it? What is the answer, then?

Menino and others talk about gun control. Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws in the union... but as many gun owners will point out, guns used in violent crime aren't usually procured through legal channels... so doubt that more gun control laws would have much impact.

Is more enforcement the answer? The fact that Liquarry's mother has had an extensive criminal record, and lied to the police about how her son died makes me doubt that an increased police presence would have reduced violence. Some of the arrests in the family were for attacks on police officers.

More social services? If $148,000 in social services per year couldn't save a child, what amount will?

I just don't know...

Water - Bottled vs. Tap

I've long been a proponent of the use of tap water over bottled whenever possible. This was based on financial and environmental factors, as well as common sense. It just seems silly to me how much of an industry has been built around bottling, marking up, and distributing something so freely available as water.

Yesterday's New York Times had an interesting Op-Ed piece echoing many of my concerns:

In Praise of Tap Water

Highlights include:

"This country has some of the best public water supplies in the world.... Almost all municipal water in America is so good that nobody needs to import a single bottle from Italy or France or the Fiji Islands."

"If you choose to get your recommended eight glasses a day from bottled water, you could spend up to $1,400 annually. The same amount of tap water would cost about 49 cents."

"The Earth Policy Institute in Washington has estimated that it takes about 1.5 million barrels of oil to make the water bottles Americans use each year. That could fuel 100,000 cars a year instead.... Add in the substantial amount of fuel used in transporting water, which is extremely heavy, and the impact on the environment is anything but refreshing."

"The more the wealthy opt out of drinking tap water, the less political support there will be for investing in maintaining America's public water supply."

I challenge those of you who only drink bottled water to a taste-test - your current brand vs. your tap water (try it before and after sending it through a filter like a Britta). I can't speak for other cities, but I think most people around here will be surprised. Boston's freshest isn't "Fiji™", but I don't think it'll let you down if you're drinking most other brands.

I admit, I drink bottled water at the office (we don't have a tap-based bubbler or a sink large enough to fit a bottle under) but at least it's locally-bottled in 5 gallon jugs that we re-use, so I feel like there's less negative environmental impact.