The End of the American Century?

[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!

[dungeonbaby]

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.

 

how in the world can perception prevail over facts? what kind of debate are you hoping to have if all arguments are based on feeling and perception? if i feel a person committed a crime, can that person be jailed or put to death over my perception?

 

 

your stats are incomplete and old. there is no contesting that. to show homicide rates today, you obviously need to go beyond 1990.

 

 

[dungeonbaby]

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.

 

you're right, the original had no quotation marks. my mistake.

[Bugatti Veyron]

Here are some photos of the Philippines at the turn of the 19th century. Photos show the American military occupation of the Philippines.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johntewell/sets/72157627639386021/show/

[maxiev]

Here's an old video of what Manila looked like under American administration. Just 3 years before Japan invaded the Philippines.

 

Manila, Queen of the Pacific 1938

 

[hit05]

For many who do not have access to quality books, the Last Samurai movie offers an insight to the American system too. It shows the issues about the Meiji Restoration and the modernization process of feudal Japan. We love the Japanese for their honor but in this movie, the characters depict the struggle to preserve the old virtues and renew respect for experience amid change. Yup, this is a Hollywood movie but many elements in the scrip/novel resemble historical events that took place although presentation may have differed considerably.

 

The movie highlights the plurality of interests of the American System. Like Imperial Japan, it had to struggle with prioritizing change. Mercantilism was strongest during this era and industries were expanding with technological innovation and aggressive salesmanship. In history, the Meiji Restoration and Japanese modernization to an Imperial power was a direct result of refusal by Admiral Perry to allow a Japanese commoner to board his ship set sail to the USA. Japan knew that unless they industrialize, they will surely lose sovereignty because technology has changed drastically.

 

However, beyond the limited time frame of the movie, history also shows that industrialization corrupted the Japanese. It gave them power but it had used it poorly. The poor use of power was never so grave than in WW2 when they joined the war late. The Japanese succumb to NAZI propaganda that Germany was winning the war effort and would soon take over the world.

 

In those days, Japan was like China today and copied much from the success of others. In the same fashion the NAZI party seized power, Japan suspended parliament in favor of martial rule, with a ranking military officer assuming the role of premier and taking over as dictator. Then they embarked on the same mean atrocious and relentless effort to expand territory in surprise, overpowering blitzkrieg attacks. But it lacks intelligence and did not realize the war was at a tail end with Germany losing much of its war machine and skilled officers in a prolonged and harsh Russian winter.