The End of the American Century?

[sonnyt111]

All great societies end given a specific amount of time. The British Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, etc. all had their heyday but all have since vanished. That's the nature of evolution. Of change. What will the United States be like 100 or 1,000 years from now? I'm pretty certain the US as we know it today will no longer be the same. Neither will the Philippines nor the rest of the world.

That's the nature of change. The only thing that never changes is change itself. The US today isn't the same US that existed at the turn of the 20th century. And the US will certainly evolve into a different nation 1,000 years from now.

[sonnyt111]

That's the nature of change. The only thing that never changes is change itself. The US today isn't the same US that existed at the turn of the 20th century. And the US will certainly evolve into a different nation 1,000 years from now.

 

Was reading an article on yahoo this evening. There was this 7 year old kid who was placed in handcuffs and interrogated for 10 hours by New York's finest over the issue of $5 milk money. Since when do police treat 7 year old children like hardened criminals? Here's the link to that story:

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/7-old-handcuffed-over-5-says-suit-232812597--abc-news-topstories.html

 

Hopefully the link will still be around by the time you read this post.

 

Anyway, I think there is something fundamentally wrong in a society where police treat 7 year old kids like hardened criminals. Between the increasing incidence of mass shootings and the ridiculous manner in which children are treated by the police, what is happening to America?

Edited January 31, 2013 by sonnyt111

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Here's an interesting link about the Philippine American War, 1899 - 1902 by Arnaldo Dumindin. Book includes very interesting old photos of the Philippines.

 

 

http://philippineamericanwar.webs.com/

[dungeonbaby]

Was reading an article on yahoo this evening. There was this 7 year old kid who was placed in handcuffs and interrogated for 10 hours by New York's finest over the issue of $5 milk money. Since when do police treat 7 year old children like hardened criminals? Here's the link to that story:

 

http://gma.yahoo.com...topstories.html

 

Hopefully the link will still be around by the time you read this post.

 

Anyway, I think there is something fundamentally wrong in a society where police treat 7 year old kids like hardened criminals. Between the increasing incidence of mass shootings and the ridiculous manner in which children are treated by the police, what is happening to America?

7

 

 

in the same article you posted a link to, the family of the 7 yr old boy is suing for $250 million. $250 million. that seem a little greedy to you? that number alone should give one pause and consider that maybe, just maybe there is another side to the story. was it really just about lunch money or could there have been another story that involved a disturbing pattern of bullying and threats? could the charges have been exaggerated?

.

anyway, mass shootings are a different matter. i think this has more to do with a deterioration of traditional values, the decreased central role of family, and a lack of focus on proper diagnosis of and response to mental illness.

[sonnyt111]

7

 

 

in the same article you posted a link to, the family of the 7 yr old boy is suing for $250 million. $250 million. that seem a little greedy to you? that number alone should give one pause and consider that maybe, just maybe there is another side to the story. was it really just about lunch money or could there have been another story that involved a disturbing pattern of bullying and threats? could the charges have been exaggerated?

.

anyway, mass shootings are a different matter. i think this has more to do with a deterioration of traditional values, the decreased central role of family, and a lack of focus on proper diagnosis of and response to mental illness.

 

Well yes there's always the possibility that there's more to this story than meets the eye. But that doesn't change the fact that this child was photographed cuffed to a metal rod. If I were the parents of this little boy, I would sue for as much as I possibly can. Not because I'm greedy, but because I'm indignant and want those responsible for this shameless act to be held accountable and punished in the most severe way possible. Besides, it was probably the parents' attorney that asked for that amount since he/she knows the judge will most certainly find this amount overkill and reduce the amount of damages accordingly. Naturally, the attorney will get a percentage of the settlement, hence the very large initial amount of the lawsuit. All parties know that haggliing occurs in the courtroom like it does in a marketplace. The amount demanded was probably arbitrary to begin with. The attorney is trying to negotiate from a very high initial figure to something more realistic and acceptable to both parties.

 

As to mass shootings which seem to be increasing at an alarming rate, your points are indeed valid. But what's causing this deterioration of moral values? Why the increase in mental illness and/or the failure to properly diagnose and treat the illness? Seems most of the shootings that occur are commited by young people. The causes could be any of those you mentioned or a combination thereof.

 

This phenomenon was practically unheard off in the 60', 70's and even the 80's. As far as I know mass shootings as we know them today started with the Columbine massacre. Sure there could have been similar shootings in the past but none gained more notoriety that the one at Columbine.

Edited February 21, 2013 by sonnyt111

[dungeonbaby]

As to mass shootings which seem to be increasing at an alarming rate, your points are indeed valid. But what's causing this deterioration of moral values? Why the increase in mental illness and/or the failure to properly diagnose and treat the illness? Seems most of the shootings that occur are commited by young people. The causes could be any of those you mentioned or a combination thereof.

 

This phenomenon was practically unheard off in the 60', 70's and even the 80's. As far as I know mass shootings as we know them today started with the Columbine massacre. Sure there could have been similar shootings in the past but none gained more notoriety that the one at Columbine.

 

 

mass shootings did not begin with Columbine. and the 60s were not immune from this phenomenon. notoriety might be relative to who's doing the talking.

 

the fact is there is less violent crime in the states today than there was in the 80s or even during the Great Depression. according to "American Homicide" author Randolph Roth, professor of history at Ohio State, the US homicide rate is about "as low a place as [they've] been in the past 100 years."

[maxiev]

mass shootings did not begin with Columbine. and the 60s were not immune from this phenomenon. notoriety might be relative to who's doing the talking.

 

the fact is there is less violent crime in the states today than there was in the 80s or even during the Great Depression. according to "American Homicide" author Randolph Roth, professor of history at Ohio State, the US homicide rate is about "as low a place as [they've] been in the past 100 years."

This sounds really counter intuitive. How many kids back in the 60's were involved in mass shootings? How many Columbines, Virginia Techs, etc. occured in the 60's?

 

Are Randolph Roth's statements that the US homicide rate is about "as low a place as [they've] been in the past 100 years" supposed to be taken as gospel truth? I'm pretty certain that there are other people out there who will cite the opposite and base their conclusions on statistics like Mr. Roth cited.

 

Even legal luminaries are known to disagree about the interpretation of the law. Doctors have been known to disagree with the protocols empolyed by their colleagues. Physicists and other scientists on many occasions cannot agree on certain theories. Same thing goes with political groups, religious groups, historians, etc. Everyone has his or her own take on things depending on their vantage points.

 

Given the same set of figures cited by Mr. Roth, it's conceivable that other experts on crime will disagree with his statements because their methodologies are different. Conclusions are always based on the type of statistical tools employed, the methodologies used, and the appreciation of the evidence that's available. Mr. Roth's views/opinions are just one point of view. No one man has a monopoly on knowledge. I do not believe everything I read especially if I don't know the background of the person who wrote the article or what his political motivaions are. I suspect this article has something to do with the debate on gun control. Mr. Roth's conclusions may therefore be influenced on where he stands on this particular issue. If he supports the policies of the National Rifle Association, then he would naturally say that the proliferation of guns has not increased the incidence of crime. On the contrary he can say that despite the number of firearms in the US, crime has actually dropped.

 

A unbiased statement by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation about the state of crime today compared to yesteryears would, in my opinion, carry more weight insofar as credibility is concerned.

Edited February 23, 2013 by maxiev

[dungeonbaby]

This sounds really counter intuitive. How many kids back in the 60's were involved in mass shootings? How many Columbines, Virginia Techs, etc. occured in the 60's?

 

Are Randolph Roth's statements that the US homicide rate is about "as low a place as [they've] been in the past 100 years" supposed to be taken as gospel truth? I'm pretty certain that there are other people out there who will cite the opposite and base their conclusions on statistics like Mr. Roth cited.

 

A unbiased statement by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation about the state of crime today compared to yesteryears would, in my opinion, carry more weight insofar as credibility is concerned.

 

then cite reports that will support your opinions and beliefs. start with the FBI's Uniform Crime Report which has statistics from the 1930s and see what you come up with. here's what i know: in 2011 there were 4.8 homicides per 100,000 people in america. in 1980 it was 10.2. a huge decrease.

 

it is also counter-intuitive that we are going around the sun instead of the sun going around our planet, but the truth was counter-intuitive to what people held to be real for centuries. counter-intuitive is not equal to wrong. additionally, if you had read the article i cited, you would've been able to answer your own concerns about the statistics. that mass murders, according to another history professor, involve a totally different kind of perpetrator and therefore speak of a different social problem altogether.

 

yes, i just rendered all my stats ineffectual. to move the discussion forward.

 

how do school shootings tie in with the thread topic?

 

On the first article: Interesting. But flawed.

 

When you see America as nothing but an arrogant brat and assume, therefore, that it operates on the misguided belief that it is its birthright to rule the world instead of on a Judeo-Christian impetus to do what is right, then you can only imagine certain responses coming from their people. You can only imagine that they would act in a self-centered, short-sighted way. The scenarios you quoted paint the US as having such little imagination and being so intent on hegemony that they would build the hammer (or buy one from China) to nail their own coffin.

 

Americans are sitting on vast reserves of energy and could stop dependence on their enemies' oil if they wanted ignored al gore or felt sufficiently threatened. Just in Pennsylvania the oil hasn't been touched in 80 years, I heard. And they can always do what the Germans did in WWII – convert coal to gasoline. They could do that tomorrow. So the oil shock scenario…kaput.

 

Besides, China doesn't want the dollar to devalue. They need to prop up the US or else their investment is gone. What good is their loan to the US if the US pays them back with cheap dollars? And who will buy all the stuff they manufacture for Walmart?

 

True, but American Exceptionalism and the view that America should be the world's policeman makes the military misadventure more likely than the others. The unpopular war in Iraq is an example.

 

Although, I do not think that it would cause the end of American domination. A more like scenario would be social implosion. Things in the US are now tense with the economic downturn, massive illegal immigration from Mexico, and a taxation system favoring socialist ideology. I think it would be more like the middle class being taxed out of existence, collapse of social security due to lots of massive unemployment and the job market bottoming out because the illegals from Mexico pouring in on the American Southwest (check out California as a harbinger for all 3 scenarios).

 

seems like Ryuji hit the bull's-eye on this one.

[maxiev]

then cite reports that will support your opinions and beliefs. start with the FBI's Uniform Crime Report which has statistics from the 1930s and see what you come up with. here's what i know: in 2011 there were 4.8 homicides per 100,000 people in america. in 1980 it was 10.2. a huge decrease.

 

it is also counter-intuitive that we are going around the sun instead of the sun going around our planet, but the truth was counter-intuitive to what people held to be real for centuries. counter-intuitive is not equal to wrong. additionally, if you had read the article i cited, you would've been able to answer your own concerns about the statistics. that mass murders, according to another history professor, involve a totally different kind of perpetrator and therefore speak of a different social problem altogether.

 

yes, i just rendered all my stats ineffectual. to move the discussion forward.

 

how do school shootings tie in with the thread topic?

 

 

seems like Ryuji hit the bull's-eye on this one.

Read this article Ms. dungeonbaby http://prospect.org/article/violent-crime-increasing

As I mentioned, conclusions are based on how data were gathered, analyzed and interpreted. Different methodology will result in different conclusions. Reporting statistics is not as clear cut as one might expect. Many variables used by one agency may be ignored by another and vice versa. There's a lot of gray area and even experts cannot agree among themselves which report more accuarately represents the truth.

 

The incidence of school shootings seems to be on the rise today (at least from where I'm standing) vis-a-vis those rampages in the 60's. You may have a different opinion insofar as this observation goes. Your statistics may bear you out while mine may support my beliefs. Tell you what. You respect my opinion and I respect yours. Fair enough?

 

You want to know how school shootings tie in with the thread topic "End of the American Century?" The American empire seems to be imploding from the inside as mentioned by Ryuji Tanaka and which you seem to agree with. Well what symptoms should one look for when citing this observation?

 

As far as I'm concerned, one of the symptoms is the peace and order situation of a nation. Well the seeming rise in school shootings would fall under peace and order wouldn't it? You may disagree that school shootings is on the rise and I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.

 

As far as counter intuition goes, yes you're right. Counter intuition is not the same as being right or wrong. I simple said "IT SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE" That's another opinion of mine which I wish you would respect.

 

And yes I did read the article you cited.

Edited February 24, 2013 by maxiev

[Bugatti Veyron]

Technically speaking, the British Empire is still in existence.

 

The British Empire consisted of the American continent back in the 1700's (America and parts of Canada), India and what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh, Burma, Australia, Hong Kong (the British Empire's Crown colony) a number of nations in Africa, Israel, certain Caribbean and South American islands (Falklands), and even Northern Ireland.

 

Britain has relinquished all claim to these nations which now either have self-rule or are under the administration of another country (eg. Hong Kong- Beijing) The only "colony" it now controls is Northern Ireleand which sank into civil war years ago with the IRA (Catholic) seeking the overthrow of the British from Ireland through armed struggle. Peace has since returned with Sin Fein (the Irish political party of the Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland) and Northern Irelenad) and the British government.

 

Britian also still hold sovreignty in the Falkland Islands (disputed by Argentina and which resulted in a short war in 1972).

 

Sir Nick Fury, in what way would you say does the British Empire still exist today?

[dungeonbaby]

Read this article Ms. dungeonbaby http://prospect.org/...rime-increasing

As I mentioned, conclusions are based on how data were gathered, analyzed and interpreted. Different methodology will result in different conclusions. Reporting statistics is not as clear cut as one might expect. Many variables used by one agency may be ignored by another and vice versa. There's a lot of gray area and even experts cannot agree among themselves which report more accuarately represents the truth.

 

your link doesn't seem to be working. kindly post the relevant data here instead or summarize its main points for the readers here, Mr. maxiev.

 

i think readers of the PEACE threads know that numbers can be influenced by how data is gathered. when you said that FBI data would be more credible, I looked at FBI data and invited you to do the same.

 

your quote shows the rates from between 1973 to 1988 only, which would be about the time that the homicide rate would peak. after that it declined until 2011. besides, we were talking about homicides, not aggravated assaults or robberies. again, how do your figures support your opinions? don't get me wrong, you can opine if you want and you certainly don't have to defend your opinions if you don't want to, but then you can't complain about data or posts that run contrary to your opinions.

 

The incidence of school shootings seems to be on the rise today (at least from where I'm standing) vis-a-vis those rampages in the 60's. You may have a different opinion insofar as this observation goes. Your statistics may bear you out while mine may support my beliefs. Tell you what. You respect my opinion and I respect yours. Fair enough?

 

i don't believe i said that school shootings weren't on the rise, i said notoriety is relative. i might agree with you yet. what the FBI figures show is that the overall homicide rate has dropped. which statistic is more relevant to the peace and order situation? i tend to go with the overall crime rate rather than isolated shootings.

 

You want to know how school shootings tie in with the thread topic "End of the American Century?" The American empire seems to be imploding from the inside as mentioned by Ryuji Tanaka and which you seem to agree with. Well what symptoms should one look for when citing this observation?

 

to answer i'll just quote myself (sounds pompous, i know, but really i'm just lazy):

 

anyway, mass shootings are a different matter. i think this has more to do with a deterioration of traditional values, the decreased central role of family, and a lack of focus on proper diagnosis of and response to mental illness.

 

we can discuss that further if you want. right now i'm just a sloth - another example of moral deterioration right there. not that i'm American.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, one of the symptoms is the peace and order situation of a nation. Well the seeming rise in school shootings would fall under peace and order wouldn't it? You may disagree that school shootings is on the rise and I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.

 

As far as counter intuition goes, yes you're right. Counter intuition is not the same as being right or wrong. I simple said "IT SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE" That's another opinion of mine which I wish you would respect.

 

And yes I did read the article you cited.

 

school shootings may be on the rise, i've not looked at the data yet so my opinion on that would be limited by the sensationalized coverage school shootings get.

 

is the overall homicide rate on the rise? no. both answers are relevant to the peace and order situation of america. but like i said in an earlier post, one seems to be a reflection of the state of mind of a very tiny segment of america's population. for this phenomenon to reflect America's societal degeneration it would have to 1) significantly increase in number in a short period of time, 2) be isolated to America and not happen in the rest of the world, and 3) the public's reaction to them would have to be less than shock and horror.

 

asking you to clarify your views is not disrespectful, is it? if i didn't respect an opinion i wouldn't be asking the owner of said opinion a follow-up question, i'd be ignoring his post. it surprised me that you read the article and yet did not make the data i cited irrelevant to the discussion right there. you see, sir, the question is not 'why doesn't the decreasing crime rate reflect the moral degeneration that seems to be happening in America?' the question should be 'why are men in the US going on killing sprees before they commit suicide?' because i think the answer to that is what ties in with the unraveling of America.

[maxiev]

Ms. Dungeonbaby, I will try to answer your questions one by one. Point by point. I will do this in installments.

Edited February 25, 2013 by maxiev

[maxiev]

your link doesn't seem to be working. kindly post the relevant data here instead or summarize its main points for the readers here, Mr. maxiev.

 

i think readers of the PEACE threads know that numbers can be influenced by how data is gathered. when you said that FBI data would be more credible, I looked at FBI data and invited you to do the same.

 

your quote shows the rates from between 1973 to 1988 only, which would be about the time that the homicide rate would peak. after that it declined until 2011. besides, we were talking about homicides, not aggravated assaults or robberies. again, how do your figures support your opinions? don't get me wrong, you can opine if you want and you certainly don't have to defend your opinions if you don't want to, but then you can't complain about data or posts that run contrary to your opinions.

Gee I don't know why you can't open the link. I was able to open it without any problem. Well actually it was a very long article and I must admit I did not go through it with a fine toothed comb. I too have been feeling sluggish lately and read it only cursorily.

 

Anyway the article starts off with the statement that, almost without exception, Americans believe violent crime is increasing. Not unlike my own personal observation. The report mentions that to a certain extent, particularly in the short term, this observation is valid. Violent crime did rise between 1985 and 1990.

 

The article went on to say that what really worries Americans is not the short-term trend but the feeling that violent crime has been increasing steadily over a very long time and that in the future, this will increase even more. Many people associate this increase in crime with drugs, an increasingly hedonistic mindset, declining academic standards, etc. And this is precisely what I've been trying to express until you started bombarding me with all those statistics. Anyway I digress..

 

The article says that America has a much higher rate of violent crime than other developed countries. Its history is steeped in violence much of which is glorified in films. This heritage of violence has been there as far back as the days of slavery. The American Civil War is probably the bloodiest war Americans have ever been involved in. With war comes violence and this violence is essentially internalized and evenutally institutionalized.

 

Questions about whether traditional means of containing violence have broken down are what's important according to the article. It goes on to say that violence in America is at an all time high today but not necessarily higher than it was in the 70's.

 

An accurate index in measuring long-term trends in violence is the murder rate. Like I correctly opined earlier, the chance of being murdered in the 50's and 60's was relatively low by todays standards. This doubled between 1964 and 1974 and stayed high until 1980.

 

Then unexpectedly, the murder rate declined significantly between 1980 and 1985, according to the article. Towards the late 1980's the rate climbed again. In 1989, the murder rate was higher than the periods 1983 to 1988 as well as the periods 1950's until 1972 but still lower than the murder rate from the period 1972 to 1982. A bit confusing there in my opinion.

 

All these figures aside, the general feeling of Americans was that America has become a much more dangerous place to live in today. That too is my perception.

 

One reason for this perception is that media, particularly those found in New York and Washington DC. sometimes reports crime statistics arbitrarily. When violent crime rates went down in the early 80's many media practioners assumed that the decline was only temporary and gave crime reporting very little air time. They downplayed the issue.

 

And when it spiked in the late 80's they concluded that this was the reality that was facing America. A portent of things to come. That received a lot of press.

 

The skewed way the media reported crime rates naturally molded public opinion regarding the perceived increasing crime rate. Admittedly, the article says that crime rates today are actually the same even if the number of crimes increased because population also increased. Murder rates as a function of an increase in population remain the same. Which is what I think you were trying to point out.

 

And there's the issue of different agencies reporting conflicting results. The FBI traditionally reports increase in the number of crimes over previous years while the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) normally report that the number of crimes from year to year either remains the same or declines. The press always highlights the reports of the FBI (sensationalizing?) and downplays the reports of the BJS. The article states that the BJS reports are more accuarate than that of the FBI but that doesn't stop media from giving more media mileage to the reports of the FBI.

 

Why the discrepancy in the way these agencies report the increase or decrease in crime? The article reports, and I quote: " But this contrast raises another question. Why should two government agencies constantly reach different conclusions about trends in violent crime? Neither the FBI nor BJS fudges its data for political reasons. But whereas BJS relies on survey data that are collected in the same way year after year, the FBI relies on administrative data, which are generated in a slightly different way every year. These incremental changes make FBI statistics on non-lethal violence almost useless for analyzing changes over time."

 

I admit I do not understand what "administrative data" is and what the significance of this statement is. But the bottom line, is the methodology used by these two agencies are different. That's what I've been trying to get across all this time.

 

To continue: The article says and I quote again: "Police Estimates of Crime

Every year most local police departments calculate the number of crimes committed within their jurisdiction. They forward these estimates both to the local news media, which usually give them considerable attention, and to the FBI, which uses them to estimate the number of crimes "known to the police" nationwide. These FBI estimates suggest that violent crime has increased by a factor of four since 1960 and is now at an all-time high." So the FBI has consistently reported a considerable increase in the crime rate between 1960 and the present which is reported vigorously by the media. No wonder the perception of a rising crime rate is so rampant. Consider me as one of those whose beliefs were shaped by these FBI reports.

 

At this point the report becomes extremely detailed. I'm not into reading the nitty gritty because I'm guilty of sloth as well.

 

Suffice to say that my perceptions that crime is on the rise are shared by a lot of other people.

 

I wish you could read that article yourself. If only you could open the link. Anyway I'll post it here again. Hopefully you'll be able to open it this time. http://prospect.org/article/violent-crime-increasing

 

If you still cannot open it, try googling "Is violent crime increasing?" The article is in the American Prospect Website.

Edited February 25, 2013 by maxiev

[maxiev]

 

 

i don't believe i said that school shootings weren't on the rise, i said notoriety is relative. i might agree with you yet. what the FBI figures show is that the overall homicide rate has dropped. which statistic is more relevant to the peace and order situation? i tend to go with the overall crime rate rather than isolated shootings.

 

I will quote two items in my former post to answer this one:

 

1. An accurate index in measuring long-term trends in violence is the murder rate.

 

2. The FBI traditionally reports increase in the number of crimes over previous years. This was taken/summarized directly from the article. Note that the FBI traditionally reports an increase in the number of crimes from year to year. This contradicts your statement above saying that, and I quote: " FBI figures show is that the overall homicide rate has dropped." It is the report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics that tends to support your contention.

 

Please note however that this is just one article which I happened to read. There may be other articles out there which may contradict what's contained in this report. Those reports may even bear you out.

Edited February 25, 2013 by maxiev

[maxiev]

school shootings may be on the rise, i've not looked at the data yet so my opinion on that would be limited by the sensationalized coverage school shootings get.

 

is the overall homicide rate on the rise? no. both answers are relevant to the peace and order situation of america. but like i said in an earlier post, one seems to be a reflection of the state of mind of a very tiny segment of america's population. for this phenomenon to reflect America's societal degeneration it would have to 1) significantly increase in number in a short period of time, 2) be isolated to America and not happen in the rest of the world, and 3) the public's reaction to them would have to be less than shock and horror.

The overall number of homicides is increasing but the overall homicide rates remains the same. The explanation for this is the growing population of Americans. I will quote directly from that article verbatim:

Two weeks later the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report predicting that the number of murders would reach an all-time high in 1990. This was front-page news across the country. But what the report neglected to mention, and most journalists also failed to note, was that the population will also reach an all-time high in 1990. Once we take this into account, the projected murder rate for 1990 is no higher than it was during most of the 1970s.

 

You also stated, and I quote: "one seems to be a reflection of the state of mind of a very tiny segment of america's population" On the contrary, the article states and I quote: "Almost without exception, Americans believe that violent crime is increasing." Also, and I quote directly from the article: "Nonetheless, most Americans are convinced that America has become much more dangerous."

 

So it isn't a very tiny segment of America's population. Most Americans believe that crime is on the rise. I agree with this observation which, I admit, may have been caused by media's reporting of the news.

 

And as to your statement about America's societal degenaration being dependent on the assumption that this phenomenon happens only in America and not to the rest of the world, I again quote from the article:

 

" America certainly has more violence than other rich countries. Murder rates are far higher in the United States than in Europe, Japan, or even Canada. We also have more rapes, robberies, and assaults than other rich countries. But this is nothing new. Crime rates have always been much higher in America than in other affluent nations." Violence, particularly homicide occurs in other parts of the world as well but America far surpasses these countries in terms of murder rates. But like the article states, this is nothing new.

 

As far as shock and horror goes, I think Americans still react to horrendous crimes with shock and horror. So on this count, I don't think this should be factored into the "societal degeneration of America."

Edited February 25, 2013 by maxiev

[maxiev]

Ms. Dungeonbaby, I think we've pretty much covered this topic and I think we should move on. Many of those who read the foregoing may be bored with our discussions and honestly, I think this is taking too much of our valuable time. Let's just leave this discussion and call it a truce. Deal?

[maxiev]

asking you to clarify your views is not disrespectful, is it? if i didn't respect an opinion i wouldn't be asking the owner of said opinion a follow-up question, i'd be ignoring his post. it surprised me that you read the article and yet did not make the data i cited irrelevant to the discussion right there. you see, sir, the question is not 'why doesn't the decreasing crime rate reflect the moral degeneration that seems to be happening in America?' the question should be 'why are men in the US going on killing sprees before they commit suicide?' because i think the answer to that is what ties in with the unraveling of America.

I'm sorry I only noticed this part of your post now. Yes certainly it is not disrespectful to ask someone to clarify his/her views. I'm glad you did because like you said, if you ignored the post, then that would be disrespectful. Thanks for not ignoring my posts.

 

Ok as to your question 'why are men in the US going on killing sprees before they commit suicide?' because i think the answer to that is what ties in with the unraveling of America.'

 

I'm sorry, but I'm at a total loss of words why this phenomenon seems to be on the rise. You mentioned in a previous post that this could be attributed to increasing cases of mental illness and the failure to diagnose and treat such illnesses. But the question still remains: why is mental illness on the rise? is it because of disintegrating family values? rejection of a belief in God? or some other sinister reason that even the most seasoned psychologists cannot answer? On this count I think your guess is as good as mine.

Edited February 25, 2013 by maxiev

[Bugatti Veyron]

This is from Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia....eas_territories

 

 

Since these territories are still under British jurisdiction, one can say that there is, technically, still a semblance of the British Empire.

Yes a very scaled down version of the original empire.

[dungeonbaby]

Anyway the article starts off with the statement that, almost without exception, Americans believe violent crime is increasing. Not unlike my own personal observation. The report mentions that to a certain extent, particularly in the short term, this observation is valid. Violent crime did rise between 1985 and 1990.

 

The article went on to say that what really worries Americans is not the short-term trend but the feeling that violent crime has been increasing steadily over a very long time and that in the future, this will increase even more. Many people associate this increase in crime with drugs, an increasingly hedonistic mindset, declining academic standards, etc. And this is precisely what I've been trying to express until you started bombarding me with all those statistics. Anyway I digress..

 

Questions about whether traditional means of containing violence have broken down are what's important according to the article. It goes on to say that violence in America is at an all time high today but not necessarily higher than it was in the 70's.

 

An accurate index in measuring long-term trends in violence is the murder rate. Like I correctly opined earlier, the chance of being murdered in the 50's and 60's was relatively low by todays standards. This doubled between 1964 and 1974 and stayed high until 1980.

 

Then unexpectedly, the murder rate declined significantly between 1980 and 1985, according to the article. Towards the late 1980's the rate climbed again. In 1989, the murder rate was higher than the periods 1983 to 1988 as well as the periods 1950's until 1972 but still lower than the murder rate from the period 1972 to 1982. A bit confusing there in my opinion.

 

All these figures aside, the general feeling of Americans was that America has become a much more dangerous place to live in today. That too is my perception.

 

One reason for this perception is that media, particularly those found in New York and Washington DC. sometimes reports crime statistics arbitrarily. When violent crime rates went down in the early 80's many media practioners assumed that the decline was only temporary and gave crime reporting very little air time. They downplayed the issue.

 

The skewed way the media reported crime rates naturally molded public opinion regarding the perceived increasing crime rate. Admittedly, the article says that crime rates today are actually the same even if the number of crimes increased because population also increased. Murder rates as a function of an increase in population remain the same. Which is what I think you were trying to point out.

 

Suffice to say that my perceptions that crime is on the rise are shared by a lot of other people.

 

i placed in bold where you give me feelings and perceptions, not fact.

i underlined where your data shows that you are only looking at rates until 1990 at the latest. as i said, the peak was the 80s and since then the homicide rate has declined.

i italicized where you actually supported my statements. see how much we agree on?

 

and that sentence that's both in bold and underscored...well that takes the cake. that didn't even make sense. all time high but not as high as the 70s? wha?

 

The article says that America has a much higher rate of violent crime than other developed countries. Its history is steeped in violence much of which is glorified in films. This heritage of violence has been there as far back as the days of slavery. The American Civil War is probably the bloodiest war Americans have ever been involved in. With war comes violence and this violence is essentially internalized and evenutally institutionalized.

 

while the American Civil War was terrible in the number of lives lost, it was America's bloodiest partly for the archaic way in which it was fought - not because Americans were particularly violent. if you want to make a fair comparison then compare America to the rest of the world during that time. compare her to France and the terrors of the French Revolution that was just pure evil in many ways.

 

You also stated, and I quote: "one seems to be a reflection of the state of mind of a very tiny segment of america's population" On the contrary, the article states and I quote: "Almost without exception, Americans believe that violent crime is increasing." Also, and I quote directly from the article: "Nonetheless, most Americans are convinced that America has become much more dangerous."

 

So it isn't a very tiny segment of America's population. Most Americans believe that crime is on the rise. I agree with this observation which, I admit, may have been caused by media's reporting of the news.

 

And as to your statement about America's societal degenaration being dependent on the assumption that this phenomenon happens only in America and not to the rest of the world, I again quote from the article:

 

" America certainly has more violence than other rich countries. Murder rates are far higher in the United States than in Europe, Japan, or even Canada. We also have more rapes, robberies, and assaults than other rich countries. But this is nothing new. Crime rates have always been much higher in America than in other affluent nations." Violence, particularly homicide occurs in other parts of the world as well but America far surpasses these countries in terms of murder rates. But like the article states, this is nothing new.

 

As far as shock and horror goes, I think Americans still react to horrendous crimes with shock and horror. So on this count, I don't think this should be factored into the "societal degeneration of America."

 

if you keep unintentionally bolstering my arguments like this you'll be in my corner in no time. yes. perception is one thing, fact quite another. see how easy it is to hold hands with me?

 

as for America being more violent than other rich countries...you may want to consider that statistics like this will depend on wait...wait for it...you guessed it! - methodology. so if america has more reported crime, then of course, it will have higher crime rates. i can believe japan and canada have less crime than the US - japan is a more homogeneous society and canada well...is canada lol. as for europe...with all the crime in britain now you might want to rethink these perceptions of yours.

 

Ms. Dungeonbaby, I think we've pretty much covered this topic and I think we should move on. Many of those who read the foregoing may be bored with our discussions and honestly, I think this is taking too much of our valuable time. Let's just leave this discussion and call it a truce. Deal?

 

tell you what, you're more than welcome to ignore my posts. don't worry about the other readers here, no one reads anything beyond 5 paragraphs long. and even then, that's a mental stretch. i actually read your posts and with care, and for that alone i wouldn't ignore me if i were you.

 

I'm sorry I only noticed this part of your post now. Yes certainly it is not disrespectful to ask someone to clarify his/her views. I'm glad you did because like you said, if you ignored the post, then that would be disrespectful. Thanks for not ignoring my posts.

 

Ok as to your question 'why are men in the US going on killing sprees before they commit suicide?' because i think the answer to that is what ties in with the unraveling of America.'

 

I'm sorry, but I'm at a total loss of words why this phenomenon seems to be on the rise. You mentioned in a previous post that this could be attributed to increasing cases of mental illness and the failure to diagnose and treat such illnesses. But the question still remains: why is mental illness on the rise? is it because of disintegrating family values? rejection of a belief in God? or some other sinister reason that even the most seasoned psychologists cannot answer? On this count I think your guess is as good as mine.

 

now this...this is worthy of reflection.

Edited February 27, 2013 by dungeonbaby

[maxiev]

[/size]

 

i placed in bold where you give me feelings and perceptions, not fact.

i underlined where your data shows that you are only looking at rates until 1990 at the latest. as i said, the peak was the 80s and since then the homicide rate has declined.

i italicized where you actually supported my statements. see how much we agree on?

 

and that sentence that's both in bold and underscored...well that takes the cake. that didn't even make sense. all time high but not as high as the 70s? wha?

 

 

 

while the American Civil War was terrible in the number of lives lost, it was America's bloodiest partly for the archaic way in which it was fought - not because Americans were particularly violent. if you want to make a fair comparison then compare America to the rest of the world during that time. compare her to France and the terrors of the French Revolution that was just pure evil in many ways.

 

 

 

if you keep unintentionally bolstering my arguments like this you'll be in my corner in no time. yes. perception is one thing, fact quite another. see how easy it is to hold hands with me?

 

as for America being more violent than other rich countries...you may want to consider that statistics like this will depend on wait...wait for it...you guessed it! - methodology. so if america has more reported crime, then of course, it will have higher crime rates. i can believe japan and canada have less crime than the US - japan is a more homogeneous society and canada well...is canada lol. as for europe...with all the crime in britain now you might want to rethink these perceptions of yours.

 

 

 

tell you what, you're more than welcome to ignore my posts. don't worry about the other readers here, no one reads anything beyond 5 paragraphs long. and even then, that's a mental stretch. i actually read your posts and with care, and for that alone i wouldn't ignore me if i were you.

 

 

 

now this...this is worthy of reflection.

See my comment in red.

 

This is what I wrote: "It goes on to say that violence in America is at an all time high today but not necessarily higher than it was in the 70's."

 

This is what the original article contained (verbatim)"...America is more violent today than at many times in its past. But it is no more violent than it was during most of the 1970's."

 

So in short, I tweaked the article a bit, using my own words in place of the original text. I may have embelished it a bit but I think my use of words pretty much reflects the spirit of the original text.

 

This is how you wrote it: "well that takes the cake. that didn't even make sense. all time high but not as high as the 70s? wha?"

 

I'll leave it to you on whether to debate the semantics on this one. For me this issued is closed.

 

"while the American Civil War was terrible in the number of lives lost, it was America's bloodiest partly for the archaic way in which it was fought - not because Americans were particularly violent. if you want to make a fair comparison then compare America to the rest of the world during that time. compare her to France and the terrors of the French Revolution that was just pure evil in many ways."

 

If we did this, we would be digressing from the main discussion. This can be discussed better in the other forum "Art of War." There are many experts on military history in that forum and I suggest you cross swords with them there.

 

"The article went on to say that what really worries Americans is not the short-term trend but the feeling that violent crime has been increasing steadily over a very long time and that in the future, this will increase even more. "

 

You said and I quote: "i placed in bold where you give me feelings and perceptions, not fact.

i underlined where your data shows that you are only looking at rates until 1990 at the latest. as i said, the peak was the 80s and since then the homicide rate has declined.

i italicized where you actually supported my statements. see how much we agree on?"

and that sentence that's both in bold and underscored...well that takes the cake. that didn't even make sense. all time high but not as high as the 70s? wha?

 

"the feeling" You placed this phrase in bold. "The article went on to say that what really worries Americans is not the short-term trend but the feeling that violent crime has been increasing steadily over a very long time and that in the future, this will increase even more."

 

Yes they are my perceptions. But I lifted the sentence directly from the article. So when I said "the feeling that violent crime has been increasing....." that was written by the author of the article and I merely said that I concur with this.

 

 

"if you keep unintentionally bolstering my arguments like this you'll be in my corner in no time. yes. perception is one thing, fact quite another. see how easy it is to hold hands with me?"

 

If you go by the FBI reports, then in this situation, perception and fact are one and the same. It is the reports of the Bureau of Justice and Statistics that "the number of crimes from year to year either remains the same or delcines." that seem to bolser your arguments.

 

"as for America being more violent than other rich countries...you may want to consider that statistics like this will depend on wait...wait for it...you guessed it! - methodology. so if america has more reported crime, then of course, it will have higher crime rates. i can believe japan and canada have less crime than the US - japan is a more homogeneous society and canada well...is canada lol. as for europe...with all the crime in britain now you might want to rethink these perceptions of yours."

 

You got no argument from me here. Just want to point out that what I wrote down was lifted directly from the article. Before I even read the article, I already had my suspicions that there is more violence in America than either Japan or Canada simply because it has a much larger population than either of these two countries.

 

 

"tell you what, you're more than welcome to ignore my posts. don't worry about the other readers here, no one reads anything beyond 5 paragraphs long. and even then, that's a mental stretch. i actually read your posts and with care, and for that alone i wouldn't ignore me if i were you."

 

Me ignore your posts? Perish the thought. I enjoy this discussion because it provides mental stimulation which, I heard, helps reduce the risk of Alzheimers. But my main problem is time. I can only reply when I'm not too busy. BTW if you don't mind my asking are you a professor?

Edited February 27, 2013 by maxiev

[maxiev]

I'm sorry but for some reason, I couldn't change the font color of my comments to make reading them easier. I apologize. Hope you can still make out my comments without the red highlight.

[dungeonbaby]

This is what I wrote: "It goes on to say that violence in America is at an all time high today but not necessarily higher than it was in the 70's."

 

This is what the original article contained (verbatim)"...America is more violent today than at many times in its past. But it is no more violent than it was during most of the 1970's."

 

So in short, I tweaked the article a bit, using my own words in place of the original text. I may have embelished it a bit but I think my use of words pretty much reflects the spirit of the original text.

 

This is how you wrote it: "well that takes the cake. that didn't even make sense. all time high but not as high as the 70s? wha?"

 

I'll leave it to you on whether to debate the semantics on this one. For me this issued is closed.

 

sir, you can't quote a report directly, change the words, AND enclose the passage in quotation marks as if that was the original text. it's deceptive at the very, very least.

 

the issue is closed only because it is irrelevant to the thread topic in that there are so many other factors involved in crime statistics. as it is, neither of us can directly link it to America's decline. i still maintain your stats were incomplete.

 

Me ignore your posts? Perish the thought. I enjoy this discussion because it provides mental stimulation which, I heard, helps reduce the risk of Alzheimers. But my main problem is time. I can only reply when I'm not too busy. BTW if you don't mind my asking are you a professor?

 

just staving off the alzheimer's like you.

 

 

[maxiev]

sir, you can't quote a report directly, change the words, AND enclose the passage in quotation marks as if that was the original text. it's deceptive at the very, very least.

Ma'am before you get all worked up, let me try to clear things up regarding the use of quotation marks. First off let me attach for your reference the original post I made (Post 233). You will notice that I did not use any quotation marks when I substituted my own words for the original words contained in the article.

Second, I used quotation marks in post 234 as a way to highlight my original posts, to highlight the actual words used in the article and finally I used quotation marks to highlight your own reply. I DID NOT use any deception when I used quotation marks to highlight my original statement, the actual words used in the article, and your own reply.

 

The use of quotation marks was for your own benefit. Since the discussion had gotten really long, I thought I might try to help you understand my points better if I highlighted previous statements I made with the use of quotation marks. So you could clearly differentiate what was previously written from the current statements I was making. I would have used a color highlighter or even changed the color of the fonts but I couldn't get these to work. Hence the use of quotation marks.

 

I hope this clears things up.

Edited February 28, 2013 by maxiev

[maxiev]

the issue is closed only because it is irrelevant to the thread topic in that there are so many other factors involved in crime statistics. as it is, neither of us can directly link it to America's decline. i still maintain your stats were incomplete.

We will probably never know the truth regarding the actual incidence of crime in the US because of the vague, confusing, and oftentimes conflicting data submitted by various government agencies, made even more complicated with the way media highlights or downplays these reports. In that sense I believe public perception will always prevail over "facts."

 

If you think my stats were incomplete, then naturally I respect this view. Many may agree with my analysis many won't. That's what debate is all about. I already mentioned to you early on that many disagreements occur in the medical, scientific, political, religious, etc. fields. It's all a matter of perception, of appreciation of data presented, of certain biases a person may have but won't admit or even cognitive of, of pre-conceived notions (I'm sometimes guilty of this) and a host of other factors that can affect the way a person stands on a certain issue. That said, I now consider this issue closed. Thanks for the interesting discussion Ms. Dungeonbaby. Hope to hear more of your opinions in other forums.

[maxiev]

just staving off the alzheimer's like you.

Touche!