Authentic Frontier Gibberish Kills: The Gun Policy Doubletalk Of Maya Wiley

“Authentic Frontier Gibberish,” or AFG, named in honor of Gabby Johnson of “Blazing Saddles” fame, is the public phenomenon of solemn and meaningful-sounding word clouds designed to make the naive and the barely educated (that is, most of society) feel certain that they are in the presence of superior intellect when in fact they are in the thrall of either con artists or morons.

Ethically, it falls somewhere under the categories of dishonesty, incompetence and disrespect, depending on the AFG culprit. It would be difficult to find a more blazing example than the “Gun Violence Prevention Policy” offered by Maya Wiley, the civil rights attorney and former de Blasio counsel who’s running for mayor along with approximately half the city. Gun-related violence has roughly doubled in New York City thanks to the weak law enforcement policies of her client, so Wiley is giving the same foolish voters who elected de Blasio twice a chance to emulate San Francisco and make the city even more dangerous and unlivable. At least I think that’s what she’s proposing. As with all “Authentic Frontier Gibberish,” it’s hard to tell, and that, of course, is the plan.

I’m going to stick with the summary, by your leave, but you can try to make sense out of the whole thing if you are a masochist or an optimist. One part of both that is frighteningly clear: Wiley pledges to “Reduce the NYPD budget by $1 billion and invest those funds directly into the communities most impacted by gun violence.” The second part of that sentence is classic AFG, since “invest those funds directly into the communities most impacted by gun violence” is meaningless, but the first part is called “Defunding the police.” Almost 10% of the NYPD’s operating budget was cut in the last budget cycle, and the result was a crime wave. Obviously the best plan is to cut more!

You can read this gobbledygook and say “Wait, what?” as well as I can, so I’ll just mention a few highlights before letting you have some fun. We begin with the statement at the start that NYC gun violence is “a public health crisis built on the failure to address racial equality.” This signals that what pretends to be a policy proposal about crime is just another excuse to peddle Critical Race Theory. First comes signature significance: “It’s time to address this surge of gun violence by targeting this crisis at its roots, so that every New Yorker can walk our streets in peace and with dignity, so that it’s easier to get a job than a gun, and so that no parent ever again has to wonder if their children will be safe when they leave the house.” Nobody who isn’t a con artist or a moron would attach their name to such nonsense. New York City can’t repeal the Second Amendment; there is a Constitutional right to bear arms, and until socialists and communists like the de Blasios take over, there is no right to have a job, nor should there be. Meanwhile, all parents worthy of the name have wondered if their children will be safe when they leave the house since the beginning of the human race. I worry about my son, and he’s 26. Maya’s aspirations belong in a new verse of “Imagine.”

Then comes the AFG. For example, the policy paper says that a Maya administration will…

  • “Empower and support communities who have been directly impacted to point to innovative and targeted solutions to gun violence that reflect their local conditions and experiences.”

Comment: What?

  • “Launch and expand evidence-based therapeutic supportive programs to reduce gun violence.”

Comment: What THE HELL are “evidence-based therapeutic supportive programs”?

I had to search the full plan to try to puzzle out this one, to no avail. We get “Employ proven approaches that marry the best evidence-based models with insights from practitioners in the field and people with lived experience to deliver effective strength-based therapeutic supports and connections to community resources for adults as well as middle school and high school aged youth and their families at heightened risk of future justice system involvement or victimization. These models have been shown to reduce violent reoffending by 50%.”

Where’s the evidence of these “evidence-based models?” “Have been shown” where, by whom, and what? Then there is “Expand Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) programs in schools: CBT programs are not widely available in NYC DOE schools and programs despite the fact that they have been shown to reduce violent-crime arrests among youth by nearly 50% and boosted the high school graduation rates of participants by nearly 20%. DBT programs are specifically for students who have experienced trauma, and many students are not ready for CBT without first receiving DBT. We must increase access to these and other programs shown to be effective at encouraging mental health and reducing instances of gun violence.

Again that confident but unspecified “have been shown” and “shown to.”

Can you take one more? Okay, let’s see, how about,

  • “Employ proven approaches to match programs to individuals with the highest risk and need, ensuring credible, trusted outreach staff from affected communities are responsible for program recruitment and provision.”

Comment: Proven by whom, and where? Data? Authority? Bueller? Matching programs to individuals stops gun violence? I assume that “credible, trusted outreach staff from affected communities” means “no whites,” but I could be wrong.

Well, that’s enough to get you started. When  candidates for office try to present their platform using Authentic Frontier Gibberish,  informed and experienced adults should be looking for the roll of bills with a twenty on the outside and newspaper making up the rest. Unfortunately, “evidence-based models” show that this kind of deliberate obfuscation makes the typical rube think, “Well, I don’t know what that means, but obviously she does.”

Yeah. She knows it’s meaningless, and she’s faking it. She speaks the language of The Great Stupid. It may not be understood in New York City, but it’s sure to work.

8 thoughts on “Authentic Frontier Gibberish Kills: The Gun Policy Doubletalk Of Maya Wiley

  1. Please don’t ask me about that little phantom “1” and the green line at the end. I tried to get rid of it for 20 minutes. I doesn’t show up in the draft version, and it is yet another WordPress glitch coming from its “upgrade.”

  2. “Recognize that gun violence is linked to a lack of educational and employment opportunities and increase access to these opportunities.”

    Gee and who is responsible for the lack of education and ultimately employment. Why not stop telling kids that no matter what they do they will fail because of white oppression. Instead tell them the world is their oyster if they simply learn how to learn and persist when times are tough.

    I see this BS as simply a way to funnel more money to the activist NGO’s and organizers in certain communities who will will be the recipients of grants or contracts to provide all these unproven services.

  3. There is a corporation that controls a lot of the charter schools in NYC. They are able to start a charter school and get 90+% of the kids to pass the state tests the first or second year in operation. The students don’t pay tuition and are chosen randomly by lottery. The union run schools have 10-40% of the students passing the same tests. If you wanted to go on an ‘evidence-based’ approach, wouldn’t you replace the union-run schools with schools run by this corporation? Instead, they want to ban the charter schools. If that isn’t the definition of anti-education, I don’t know what is.

    I believe I commented on the defund the police point yesterday. For leftists, if your program makes things worse, you just need to try HARDER!

    • Even with admission by lottery, it is far easier to expell low performing or disruptive students from a charter school, booting them back to the public schools. Their success is a thin veneer.

      I wouldn’t trust high passing rates either. Public schools, in my experience, halt ordinary curricula for weeks on end to prepare for the standard exams. I’d be wary that charter schools are nothing but exam prep mills. They drill standardized testing all day, so their scores look great, but that is the extent of the curricula.

      The other issue is that charter school student often have engaged parents. The kind of parents concerned enough for their children to enter them into the lottery. Parental engagement is for more important than the school itself. This these students succeed despite being sent to an exam mill because their parents instill character and a love of learning.

      Charter school are a bandaid approach. They artificially filter their student population, they focus on key metrics to avoid scrutiny, and rely on engaged parents to fill in the gaps. This is not indicative of all charter schools (ie, parental engagement can often hold them to account to produce quality curricula). However, market forces will always tend towards shoddy schools. There is no profit in taking on the difficult students; they put the school’s charter at risk! Some elements of charter schools might work in a public school setting, such as increased use of in school suspension and even expulsion in extreme cases to minimize disruption in classrooms. Entrusting an entire city’s education to a private company (even a private nonprofit) is a recipe for disaster.

  4. You nailed it, Jack.

    Meaningless words and complex phrases that really mean nothing.

    Younger generations use – well, actually they misuse – the word “insane” to reference what they believe is remarkably hip, or cool, or boss, or whatever the current word is…”lit?”

    Anyways, insanity actually has a couple of definitions (according to Merriam-Webster).
    1. a severely disordered state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder
    2. unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand
    3. extreme folly or unreasonableness
    4. something utterly foolish or unreasonable

    I have heard many times that insanity is repeating an activity with a known outcome over and over again while hoping for a different result.

    Maya Wiley’s work pretty much coincides with every definition above.

    If one removes law enforcement from the picture, then it becomes harder to enforce laws. As a result, laws cease to be enforced and lawlessness increases. That’s the natural progression and there really are no examples to the contrary (except in San Franci…oh, wait…). So Wiley’s concepts are nothing more than repeating the same failed experiments and hoping for a different result.

    Pretty much any attempt the Left makes to solve a problem has three outcomes:
    1. The problem doesn’t get solved (and often gets worse).
    2. Government gets expanded and more expensive.
    3. The freedoms of every American are attacked and contracted.

    We keep allowing the Left do-overs to solve problems. This may be the REAL insanity.

  5. I wonder whether having an engaged, present father might not be a really good program to reduce gun violence that wouldn’t need to be run by government employees.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.