Immigrant Riots

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon
Not sure if there would be more labour mobility if you'd have less house ownership. With social housing you often got long waiting-lists, which discourages getting a new one in another city. At least that's the case in Belgium.

Same here.

[Colon™]

A bit rude, but still.

http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/uploads/496.jpg

[edit] ok, that one didn't show up on its own

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit

FACT: islamic riots spreading all over Europe

FACT: you can't back up this lame assertion with a shred of evidence.

All you do is shrilly go on shouting 'PRAISE ALLAH' and implying that the rioters are all Muslims when you produce not a single 'FACT' to show that this is the case.

I have the right of telling what I think it's the truth that some people like you seem to refuse to accept.

You can 'think' it's the truth, but then there are people in lunatic asylums all over Europe who think it's the truth that they're god, or Napoleon. They seem to have difficulty proving their case too.

But I am sure you will be able to perform a google search on something absolutely out of contest, and copy/paste it into this thread

No, I won't, because I believe that introducing irrelevant and nonsensical interjections has been your privilege, in this thread and in the previous one about the London bombings.

I noticed this when you introduced a photograph of what looked like a teeny tots Hezbollah rally and failed to show how this was at all relevant to British Muslims living in the United Kingdom in that thread.

[Sikander]

Nice discussion between Az and Spiff, very imformative. Thanks.

[Datajack Franit]

I tried to be reasonable with molly bloom many times but he/she is so filled up with pseudo-chic cultural crap borrowed from both the net and vogue magazines that it just doesn't work. Now just go and play with your posts about guano huts in Patagonia or crap-eating pigs in Nepal. And when the real world knocks at your door, be yourself and many interesting things will happen.

[Spiffor]

Datajack: I'm not always with Molly, but he's 100% right this time. The French riots have nothing to do with radical Islam. The radical Muslims strive on the abandonment of these populations (so that the only constructive way for them is to embrace religion), whereas these riots are actually likely to lead to a better integration of the ghettos in the Republic.

As to the ordinary Muslims, they don't want to see their car burn, just like their neighbour.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sikander
Nice discussion between Az and Spiff, very imformative. Thanks.

Such kind words don't happen often on 'Poly

[Datajack Franit]

So it's just a coincidence that these riots happen in areas where muslims are a majority (up to 80% in some suburbs of Paris and cities of the Cote d'Azur)

It's a coincidence that rioters of 14 yo (aka nothing to do with unemployment and discrimination) are setting fire at cars, burning homes, shops and churches, throwing stones at police while yelling Allah akhbar

It's a coincidence that arab muslim immigrants all over Europe are less prone to integrate themselves and, when it happens, they're more likely to create off-limit areas to people of other ethnicity and/or religion

BTW the "ordinary muslims" have been reported to have sympathy for the London bombings. And you think they give a damn about some cars being burned? Don't make me laugh.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
So it's just a coincidence that these riots happen in areas where muslims are a majority (up to 80% in some suburbs of Paris and cities of the Cote d'Azur)

It's not coincidence, considering that our ghetto-dwellers are mostly from immigrant ascent, and that our pool of immigration comes from Muslim areas (North and West Africa). There is also no indication that the rioters are any faithful.

It's a coincidence that rioters of 14 yo (aka nothing to do with unemployment and discrimination) are setting fire at cars, burning homes, shops and churches, throwing stones at police while yelling Allah akhbar

I haven't heard anything that makes me think the Allah Akbar is any representative. OTOH, I almost daily get to hear young people who demand an apology to Sarkozy. And if you made the effort of reading my elaborate posts in this thread (there are a few), you might see that the counter-culture of violence has several causes. The return to the religious tradition is actualy a force that goes contrary to the counter-culture of petty violence that is occuring now.

It's a coincidence that arab muslim immigrants all over Europe are less prone to integrate themselves and, when it happens, they're more likely to create off-limit areas to people of other ethnicity and/or religion

BAM. Show me a proof that Arabs are different from other ethnicities in this regard. Strangely enough, the race riots of Birmingham seemed to show that ethnic hatred can run strong among other groups.

BTW the "ordinary muslims" have been reported to have sympathy for the London bombings. And you think they give a damn about some cars being burned? Don't make me laugh.

Incidentally, I've read an entire poll on the British Muslim population after the London attacks, and the support for the terrorists was extremely small. So, I can safely say that you're BAMing again.

Maybe you'd also be interested to know that all the representative authorities of Islam in France have condemned the violence, and a group has even issued a fatwa against any Muslim that would take part in the riots. Also, in the first days of the riots, Nicolas Sarkozy tried to pretend that Islamists were behind it. And even though there is a strong urge among politicians and policemen to please Sarkozy, nobody has supported this idea, because the intelligence point to a rather anti-riot role of the Islamists.

[Datajack Franit]

I'll post an article as well, and discuss it tomorrow as it's very late right now

The Suicide Bombers Among Us Theodore Dalrymple

All terrorists, presumably, know the dangers that they run, accepting them as an occupational hazard; given Man’s psychological makeup—or at least the psychological makeup of certain young men—these dangers may act as an attraction, not a deterrent. But only a few terrorists use their own deaths as an integral means of terrorizing others. They seem to be a breed apart, with whom the rest of humanity can have little or nothing in common.

Certainly they sow panic more effectively than other terrorists. Those who leave bombs in public places and then depart, despicable as they are, presumably still have attachments to their own lives, and therefore may be open to dissuasion or negotiation. By contrast, no threat (at first sight) might deter someone who is prepared to extinguish himself to advance his cause, and who considers such self-annihilation while killing as many strangers as possible a duty, an honor, and a merit that will win ample rewards in the hereafter. And Britain has suddenly been forced to acknowledge that it has an unknown number of such people in its midst, some of them home-grown.

The mere contemplation of a suicide bomber’s state of mind is deeply unsettling, even without considering its practical consequences. I have met a would-be suicide bomber who had not yet had the chance to put his thanatological daydream into practice. What could possibly have produced as embittered a mentality as his—what experience of life, what thoughts, what doctrines? What fathomless depths of self-pity led him to the conclusion that only by killing himself and others could he give a noble and transcendent meaning to his existence?

As is by now well known (for the last few years have made us more attentive to Islamic concepts and ways of thinking, irrespective of their intrinsic worth), the term “jihad” has two meanings: inner struggle and holy war. While the political meaning connotes violence, though with such supposed justifications as the defense of Islam and the spread of the faith among the heathen, the personal meaning generally suggests something peaceful and inward-looking. The struggle this kind of jihad entails is spiritual; it is the effort to overcome the internal obstacles—above all, forbidden desires—that prevent the good Muslim from achieving complete submission to God’s will. Commentators have tended to see this type of jihad as harmless or even as beneficial—a kind of self-improvement that leads to decency, respectability, good behavior, and material success.

In Britain, however, these two forms of jihad have coalesced in a most murderous fashion. Those who died in the London bombings were sacrificial victims to the need of four young men to resolve a conflict deep within themselves (and within many young Muslims), and they imagined they could do so only by the most extreme possible interpretation of their ancestral religion.

Young Muslim men in Britain—as in France and elsewhere in the West—have a problem of personal, cultural, and national identity. They are deeply secularized, with little religious faith, even if most will admit to a belief in God. Their interest in Islam is slight. They do not pray or keep Ramadan (except if it brings them some practical advantage, such as the postponement of a court appearance). Their tastes are for the most part those of non-Muslim lower-class young men. They dress indistinguishably from their white and black contemporaries, and affect the same hairstyles and mannerisms, including the vulpine lope of the slums. Gold chains, the heavier the better, and gold front teeth, without dental justification, are symbols of their success in the streets, which is to say of illicit enrichment.

Many young Muslims, unlike the sons of Hindus and Sikhs who immigrated into Britain at the same time as their parents, take drugs, including heroin. They drink, indulge in casual sex, and make nightclubs the focus of their lives. Work and careers are at best a painful necessity, a slow and inferior means of obtaining the money for their distractions.

But if in many respects their tastes and behavior are indistinguishable from those of underclass white males, there are nevertheless clear and important differences. Most obviously, whatever the similarity between them and their white counterparts in their taste for sex, drugs, and rock and roll, they nevertheless do not mix with young white men, even in the neighborhoods devoted to the satisfaction of their tastes. They are in parallel with the whites, rather than intersecting with them. Another obvious difference is the absence of young Muslim women from the resorts of mass distraction. However similar young Muslim men might be in their tastes to young white men, they would be horrified, and indeed turn extremely violent, if their sisters comported themselves as young white women do. They satisfy their sexual needs with prostitutes and those whom they quite openly call “white sluts.” (Many a young white female patient of mine has described being taunted in this fashion as she walked through a street inhabited by Muslims.) And, of course, they do not have to suffer much sexual frustration in an environment where people decide on sexual liaisons within seconds of acquaintance.

However secular the tastes of the young Muslim men, they strongly wish to maintain the male dominance they have inherited from their parents. A sister who has the temerity to choose a boyfriend for herself, or who even expresses a desire for an independent social life, is likely to suffer a beating, followed by surveillance of Stasi-like thoroughness. The young men instinctively understand that their inherited system of male domination—which provides them, by means of forced marriage, with sexual gratification at home while simultaneously freeing them from domestic chores and allowing them to live completely Westernized lives outside the home, including further sexual adventures into which their wives cannot inquire—is strong but brittle, rather as communism was: it is an all or nothing phenomenon, and every breach must meet swift punishment.

Even if for no other reason, then (and there are in fact other reasons), young Muslim males have a strong motive for maintaining an identity apart. And since people rarely like to admit low motives for their behavior, such as the wish to maintain a self-gratifying dominance, these young Muslims need a more elevated justification for their conduct toward women. They find it, of course, in a residual Islam: not the Islam of onerous duties, rituals, and prohibitions, which interferes so insistently in day-to-day life, but in an Islam of residual feeling, which allows them a sense of moral superiority to everything around them, including women, without in any way cramping their style.

This Islam contains little that is theological, spiritual, or even religious, but it nevertheless exists in the mental economy as what anatomists call a “potential space.” A potential space occurs where two tissues or organs are separated by smooth membranes that are normally close together, but that can be separated by an accumulation of fluid such as pus if infection or inflammation occurs. And, of course, such inflammation readily occurs in the minds of young men who easily believe themselves to be ill-used, and who have been raised on the thin gruel of popular Western culture without an awareness that any other kind of Western culture exists.

The dissatisfactions of young Muslim men in Britain are manifold. Most will experience at some time slighting or downright insulting remarks about them or their group—the word “Paki” is a term of disdainful abuse—and these experiences tend to grow in severity and significance with constant rehearsal in the mind as it seeks an external explanation for its woes. Minor tribulations thus swell into major injustices, which in turn explain the evident failure of Muslims to rise in their adopted land. The French-Iranian researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar, who interviewed 15 French Muslim prisoners convicted of planning terrorist acts, relates in his book, Suicide Bombers: Allah’s New Martyrs, how some of his interviewees had been converted to the terrorist outlook by a single insulting remark—for example, when one of their sisters was called a “dirty Arab” when she explained how she couldn’t leave home on her own as other girls could. Such is the fragility of the modern ego—not of Muslims alone, but of countless people brought up in our modern culture of ineffable self-importance, in which an insult is understood not as an inevitable human annoyance, but as a wound that outweighs all the rest of one’s experience.

The evidence of Muslims’ own eyes and of their own lives, as well as that of statistics, is quite clear: Muslim immigrants and their descendants are more likely to be poor, to live in overcrowded conditions, to be unemployed, to have low levels of educational achievement, and above all to be imprisoned, than other South Asian immigrants and their descendants. The refusal to educate females to their full capacity is a terrible handicap in a society in which, perhaps regrettably, prosperity requires two household incomes.

The idea that one is already in possession of the final revealed truth, leading to an inherently superior way of life, inhibits adaptation to a technically more advanced society. Even so, some British Muslims do succeed (the father of one of the London bombers owned two shops, two houses, and drove a new Mercedes)—a fact which their compatriots interpret exactly backward: not that Muslims can succeed, but that generally they can’t, because British society is inimical to Muslims. In coming to this conclusion, young Muslims would only be adopting the logic that has driven Western social policy for so long: that any difference in economic and social outcome between groups is the result of social injustice and adverse discrimination. The premises of multiculturalism don’t even permit asking whether reasons internal to the groups themselves might account for differences in outcomes.

The BBC peddles this sociological view consistently. In 1997, for example, it stated that Muslims “continue to face discrimination,” as witness the fact that they were three times as likely to be unemployed long-term as West Indians; and this has been its line ever since. If more Muslims than any other group possess no educational qualifications whatsoever, even though the hurdles for winning such qualifications have constantly fallen, it can only be because of discrimination—though a quarter of all medical students in Britain are now of Indian subcontinental descent. It can have nothing whatever to do with the widespread—and illegal—practice of refusing to allow girls to continue at school, which the press scarcely ever mentions, and which the educational authorities rarely if ever investigate. If youth unemployment among Muslims is two and a half times the rate among whites, it can be only because of discrimination—though youth unemployment among Hindus is actually lower than among whites (and this even though many young Hindus complain of being mistaken for Muslims). And so on and so on.

A constant and almost unchallenged emphasis on “social justice,” the negation of which is, of course, “discrimination,” can breed only festering embitterment. Where the definition of justice is entitlement by virtue of group existence rather than reward for individual effort, a radical overhaul of society will appear necessary to achieve such justice. Islamism in Britain is thus not the product of Islam alone: it is the product of the meeting of Islam with a now deeply entrenched native mode of thinking about social problems.

And it is here that the “potential space” of Islamism, with its ready-made diagnosis and prescriptions, opens up and fills with the pus of implacable hatred for many in search of a reason for and a solution to their discontents. According to Islamism, the West can never meet the demands of justice, because it is decadent, materialistic, individualistic, heathen, and democratic rather than theocratic. Only a return to the principles and practices of seventh-century Arabia will resolve all personal and political problems at the same time. This notion is fundamentally no more (and no less) bizarre or stupid than the Marxist notion that captivated so many Western intellectuals throughout the 20th century: that the abolition of private property would lead to final and lasting harmony among men. Both conceptions offer a formula that, rigidly followed, would resolve all human problems.

Of course, the Islamic formula holds no attraction for young women in the West. A recent survey for the French interior ministry found that 83 percent of Muslim converts and reconverts (that is, secularized Muslims who adopted Salafism) in France were men; and from my clinical experience I would bet that the 17 percent of converts who were women converted in the course of a love affair rather than on account of what Edward Gibbon, in another context, called “the evident truth of the doctrine itself.”

The West is a formidable enemy, however, difficult to defeat, for it exists not only in the cities, the infrastructure, and the institutions of Europe and America but in the hearts and minds even of those who oppose it and wish to destroy it. The London bombers were as much products of the West as of Islam; their tastes and their desires were largely Westernized. The bombers dressed no differently from other young men from the slums; and in every culture, appearance is part, at least, of identity. In British inner cities in particular, what you wear is nine-tenths of what you are. But the Western identity goes far deeper. One of the bombers was a young man of West Indian descent, whose half-sister (in his milieu, full siblings are almost unknown) reports that he was a “normal” boy, impassioned by rap music until the age of 15, when he converted to Islam. It need hardly be pointed out that rap music—full of inchoate rage, hatred, and intemperance—does not instill a balanced or subtle understanding of the world in its listeners. It fills and empties the mind at the same time: fills it with debased notions and empties it of critical faculties. The qualities of mind and character that are attracted to it, and that consider it an art form worthy of time and attention, are not so easily overcome or replaced.

Jermaine Lindsay was only 19, four years into his conversion from rap to Islam, when he died—an age at which impulsivity is generally at its greatest, requiring the kind of struggle for self-mastery that rap music is dedicated to undermining. Islam would have taught him to hate and despise what he had been, but he must have been aware that he still was what he had been. To a hatred of the world, his conversion added a self-hatred. The other bombers had passions for soccer, cricket, and pop music. They gave no indication before their dreadful deeds of religious fanaticism, and their journeys to Pakistan, in retrospect indications of a growing indoctrination by fundamentalism, could have seemed at the time merely family visits. In the meantime, they led highly Westernized lives, availing themselves of all the products of Western ingenuity to which Muslims have contributed nothing for centuries.

It is, in fact, literally impossible for modern Muslims to expunge the West from their lives: it enters the fabric of their existence at every turn. Usama bin Ladin himself is utterly dependent upon the West for his weaponry, his communications, his travel, and his funds. He speaks of the West’s having stolen Arabian oil, but of what use would oil have been to the Arabs if it had remained under their sands, as it would have done without the intervention of the West? Without the West, what fortune would bin Ladin’s family have made from what construction in Saudi Arabia?

Muslims who reject the West are therefore engaged in a losing and impossible inner jihad, or struggle, to expunge everything that is not Muslim from their breasts. It can’t be done: for their technological and scientific dependence is necessarily also a cultural one. You can’t believe in a return to seventh-century Arabia as being all-sufficient for human requirements, and at the same time drive around in a brand-new red Mercedes, as one of the London bombers did shortly before his murderous suicide. An awareness of the contradiction must gnaw in even the dullest fundamentalist brain.

Furthermore, fundamentalists must be sufficiently self-aware to know that they will never be willing to forgo the appurtenances of Western life: the taste for them is too deeply implanted in their souls, too deeply a part of what they are as human beings, ever to be eradicated. It is possible to reject isolated aspects of modernity but not modernity itself. Whether they like it or not, Muslim fundamentalists are modern men—modern men trying, impossibly, to be something else.

They therefore have at least a nagging intimation that their chosen utopia is not really a utopia at all: that deep within themselves there exists something that makes it unachievable and even undesirable. How to persuade themselves and others that their lack of faith, their vacillation, is really the strongest possible faith? What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart.

The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith.

SOURCE

[Datajack Franit]

2nd half

Of course, hatred is the underlying emotion. A man in prison who told me that he wanted to be a suicide bomber was more hate-filled than any man I have ever met. The offspring of a broken marriage between a Muslim man and a female convert, he had followed the trajectory of many young men in his area: sex and drugs and rock and roll, untainted by anything resembling higher culture. Violent and aggressive by nature, intolerant of the slightest frustration to his will and frequently suicidal, he had experienced taunting during his childhood because of his mixed parentage. After a vicious rape for which he went to prison, he converted to a Salafist form of Islam and became convinced that any system of justice that could take the word of a mere woman over his own was irredeemably corrupt. I noticed one day that his mood had greatly improved; he was communicative and almost jovial, which he had never been before. I asked him what had changed in his life for the better. He had made his decision, he said. Everything was resolved. He was not going to kill himself in an isolated way, as he had previously intended. Suicide was a mortal sin, according to the tenets of the Islamic faith. No, when he got out of prison he would not kill himself; he would make himself a martyr, and be rewarded eternally, by making himself into a bomb and taking as many enemies with him as he could. Enemies, I asked; what enemies? How could he know that the people he killed at random would be enemies? They were enemies, he said, because they lived happily in our rotten and unjust society. Therefore, by definition, they were enemies—enemies in the objective sense, as Stalin might have put it—and hence were legitimate targets. I asked him whether he thought that, in order to deter him from his course of action, it would be right for the state to threaten to kill his mother and his brothers and sisters—and to carry out this threat if he carried out his, in order to deter others like him. The idea appalled him, not because it was yet another example of the wickedness of a Western democratic state, but because he could not conceive of such a state acting in this unprincipled way. In other words, he assumed a high degree of moral restraint on the part of the very organism that he wanted to attack and destroy. Of course, one of the objects of the bombers, instinctive rather than articulated, might be to undermine this very restraint, both of the state and of the population itself, in order to reveal to the majority of Muslims the true evil nature of the society in which they live, and force them into the camp of the extremists. If so, there is some hope of success: physical attacks on Muslims (or on Hindus and Sikhs ignorantly taken to be Muslims) increased in Britain by six times in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, according to the police. It wouldn’t take many more such bombings, perhaps, to provoke real and serious intercommunal violence on the Indian subcontinental model. Britain teems with aggressive, violent subgroups who would be only too delighted to make pogroms a reality. Even if there is no such dire an eventuality, the outlook is sufficiently grim and without obvious solution. A highly secularized Muslim population whose men nevertheless wish to maintain their dominance over women and need a justification for doing so; the hurtful experience of disdain or rejection from the surrounding society; the bitter disappointment of a frustrated materialism and a seemingly perpetual inferior status in the economic hierarchy; the extreme insufficiency and unattractiveness of modern popular culture that is without value; the readiness to hand of an ideological and religious solution that is flattering to self-esteem and allegedly all-sufficient, and yet in unavoidable conflict with a large element of each individual’s identity; an oscillation between feelings of inferiority and superiority, between humiliation about that which is Western and that which is non-Western in the self; and the grotesque inflation of the importance of personal existential problems that is typical of modern individualism—all ensure fertile ground for the recruitment of further “martyrs” for years to come. Surveys suggest that between 6 and 13 percent of British Muslims—that is, between 98,000 and 208,000 people—are sympathetic toward Islamic terrorists and their efforts. Theoretical sympathy expressed in a survey is not the same thing as active support or a wish to emulate the “martyrs” in person, of course. But it is nevertheless a sufficient proportion and absolute number of sympathizers to make suspicion and hostility toward Muslims by the rest of society not entirely irrational, though such suspicion and hostility could easily increase support for extremism. This is the tightrope that the British state and population will now have to walk for the foreseeable future; and the sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced, in a single day, by the nightmare of permanent conflict

[our_man]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I tried to be reasonable with molly bloom many times but he/she is so filled up with pseudo-chic cultural crap borrowed from both the net and vogue magazines that it just doesn't work. Now just go and play with your posts about guano huts in Patagonia or crap-eating pigs in Nepal. And when the real world knocks at your door, be yourself and many interesting things will happen.

Molly's wise to what the real deal is. He gave a good post on the absurdity of withdrawing Burger King's new ice-cream because it was offensive to Muslims a few weeks back, so it's not as if he's filled his head with pseudo-chic cutural crap as you so politely put it. He just sees this purported Islamic link in the Paris riots as a non-issue, as do I.

You, on the other hand, are rather prone to hysterics and posting nonsensical one word posts quite regularly. I'm not saying that there isn't cause for concern about Islam in Europe in certain cases, but not to the vast international "Muslims under the beds" (to coin a phrase) conspiracy that you seem to entertain in your head.

Considering what you read, it's not surprising.

[lord of the mark]

I think theres some confusing of different issues in different places, and different times

1. For ex, the issues with death threats against pols in the Netherlands, seems to me something rather different than whats going on in France. Not every Europ country is going through the same things

2. It may well be that some Islamist extremists are taking advantage of riots that started for other reasons. During the '60s, in both our urban riots, and our student riots, there were fringe groups trying to piggyback. I would be surprised if that WASNT happening in France

[lord of the mark]

"With these two ideas in mind, it sounds obvious to me that we should destroy these concentrations of people living in bad cultures, from a Republican perspective, and scatter them among neighborhoods that have good cultures. "

been there, done that.

Google on "scatter site housing"


Actually im not up on how that worked out, so if you find anything interesting, let me know.

You can also Google on "Section 8 housing" while youre at it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"With these two ideas in mind, it sounds obvious to me that we should destroy these concentrations of people living in bad cultures, from a Republican perspective, and scatter them among neighborhoods that have good cultures. "

been there, done that.

Google on "scatter site housing"


Actually im not up on how that worked out, so if you find anything interesting, let me know.

I found this link interesting. I'm exhausted right now, so I couldn't read it entirely. However, rom waht I read, this is not the point I'm adressing.

"Scatter site housing" seems to be about providing emergency housing to the homeless, for a duration that is supposed not to exceed a few weeks (and which concerns, in reality, a few months tops). Scatter site housing is about paying the landlords ridiculous amounts of money so that they agree to have homeless people in their property. BTW, these people aren't really "scattered", despite the name, as there seems to be a concentration in only a few properties.

This is not what a scattered public housing is about:
1. Public housing is a long-term housing solution. It is designed for families to be able to grow in there. People are not necessarily supposed to spend their whole life in public housing, but it is expected they spend a sizeable part of their life.

2. Public housing isn't nearly as expansive as scatter site housing, considering that the landlord is the community, and the disconnect between market price and actual operating costs isn't an issue.

3. When I'm speaking about scattering public housing, I expect good social dynamics. I have seen nothing in "scatter site housing" that leads me to think it won't happen. That's because the focus is very different between both ideas: scatter site housing is only about providing emergency housing to the homeless, whereas scattered public housing is about providing permanent housing to poor families in a variety of neighbourhoods.

You can also Google on "Section 8 housing" while youre at it.

Didn't have the time, I really have to go to bed now