Friday night topic: The youth are revolting

With the recent riots in London, flash mobs in D.C., and teeming gangs of feral teenagers prompting my hometown of Kansas City to institute a curfew, I’m left wondering what exactly is going on. I’ve read some rollicking old-school, law-and-order rants in the British papers, which are always fun, and certainly a sizable contingent of conservative fuddy-duddies has decided that Western Civilization’s days are numbered. Personally, I kinda doubt the end is all that near, but then…

My wife and I saw a crowd of kids down on the Plaza (the site of the recent shooting that prompted the curfew) several months ago, and I was shocked when a kid that looked to be about 14 started a fistfight with a police officer who was much bigger than him. I was even more surprised when the large crowd of kids nearby turned and ran… toward the action, as if this were a fight in school or something and not a dangerous situation. The mob surrounded the fight, with other kids coming to the aid of the one who started it, reaching in to attack the cop from different angles. We quickly left the scene as a bunch of cops on foot, on horseback, and in patrol cars materialized seemingly out of nowhere to get the crowd under control. Months have passed since then, and the problem has apparently only grown.

My impression was that these kids didn’t care to live by the basic rules of civilization. That’s probably not a good thing.

So what do we have here? Just a series of minor scuffles? A bit of a law enforcement problem? Discontent with a world that is insufficiently redistributing wealth via government programs? A lost generation of young people? The end of the world as we know it? Something… worse?

Discuss.

Comments closed
    • clone
    • 8 years ago

    a lot of blame being bandied about, parents bad, divorce bad, kids selfish, violent video games.

    if you follow the crime stats crime rates were falling year on year to historic lows….. somehow all of that divorce and bad parenting wasn’t translating into drastically worse behavior.

    crime rates didn’t skyrocket until after the economic collapse and sustained high unemployment became the new reality as it has been for the past 4 years with no end in sight.

    I recommend many stop blaming symptoms and look more towards the cause of the ailment which is has historically been proven time and time again when their are no means to be self sustaining the ppl rebel, it may start with the youth but I believe this is going to grow.

    I look at all of this talk about riots as a subconscious voiceless revolt against the system that has left so many families shattered and without hope for the future.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    I think the first course of action should be to axe entitlement programs this will compel those lazy people to work and get their kids back in summer school. 😛

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    Obviously its all the music, movies and games that our kids are raised on.

    Seriously though I blame parenting, I think that parents can blame society and I think society can blame “the man”.

    But when all is said and done I think its up to individuals. I don’t mean to sound like a scientologist, or a person with some common sense but people gotta take responsibility if you want things to change. Stop expecting cops or the government to do it for you. Scott you and your wife as witnesses should have stayed to help sort things out. Those kids need to go to Juvenal Hall because they assaulted an officer.

    We need to take responsibility for what we do as well as the world we are part of. Individualism(the pillar of western society) doesn’t mean each actor ignores the other hoping outcomes are achieved without intervention, it means everyone acts because we are all equally empowered and responsible. Individualism is to pursue ones aspirations regardless societal constraints. If we ASPIRE for a more civil society who else should act. In the western world change is effected by those who pursue it.

    Should youth pursue anarchy then that may well be our course should we not act to prevent it.

    • danny e.
    • 8 years ago

    Everybody should watch this:

    [url<]http://www.livestream.com/ideacity/video?clipId=flv_fd017d81-dc18-42cc-821a-18b86fdea840[/url<]

    • Vrock
    • 8 years ago

    I’m not going to bother to philosophize about why things are the way they are, or wonder if they can be fixed. No, instead of doing these things, I’ve armed myself so I can be ready when it spreads to my town. I suggest you all do the same, while you still can.

    • Malphas
    • 8 years ago

    Most kids are well behaved, a minority are not. Same as has always been the case. This kind of debate about declining moral fibre in society, out of control youth, blah, blah, has been going on forever. If you’re starting to worry about the current youth generation, then it just means you’re getting old.

    • blitzy
    • 8 years ago

    I don’t believe that these kids are mature enough to even understand how screwed up the world is, they’re just a by-product of a downward spiral.

    It’s sad to see the erosion of ‘family values’ and respect for fellow man, I’m only 29 and even I have seen this gradual change in society. By family values I simply mean teaching kids basic morals, and to treat others as you would hope to be treated yourself. The fact that marriage is the exception and not the rule these days is also not good for the upbringing of kids.

    There are many factors involved but ultimately this is the result of poor upbringings, when people feel like they have no stake in society and nothing to lose this is what happens. I think what Sweatshopking wrote is also true, that culture has been perverted by media continually pushing boundaries towards more perverted things. While at the same time excessive liberty is granted to youths and the lack of consequences or punishment (even indirectly where they see what others have gotten away with) leads to even worse behaviour.

    All of these things add up and it’s really not an easy situation to fix. People who don’t even care for their children have them because they can. While responsible people are avoiding having kids because they don’t want to raise kids in an unstable environment, or can’t afford it. I can only see things getting worse.

    • LoneWolf15
    • 8 years ago

    “The youth are revolting”

    Yes. Yes they are. I know I’m certainly revolted by them. 😉

    “My impression was that these kids didn’t care to live by the basic rules of civilization. That’s probably not a good thing.”

    Have you ever read “Lord of the Flies”?

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 8 years ago

      You get a thumbs up for that one.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 8 years ago

      I think many would argue that the kids in Lord of the Flies were living exactly by the rules of civilization and acting exactly as their elders before them had. Just on a smaller scale.

        • LoneWolf15
        • 8 years ago

        I always saw the point as “When removed from civilization, people will revert to their basic instincts”. Either that, or as a sort of precursory example of the Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971.

        [url<]http://www.prisonexp.org/[/url<]

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          It’s commonly held that the children were supposed to be an allegory for how nations conduct themselves.

          • A_Pickle
          • 8 years ago

          Define people’s “basic instincts.” Personally, I reject the notion that people are, at their core, solely greedy self-interested. I don’t think it’s impossible nor un-demonstrated that people deprived of civilization will collapse into a state of chaos. Look at the Northwest blackout in 2003. People were deprived of electrical power for all of three days, and did just fine.

          I think that it really just depends. I don’t think people generally know that civilization and order come from within. They come from maturity and respect for your fellow man. I would be willing, eager even, to participate in a system of self-government if civilization were to collapse.

          Personally, I feel that small communities are the best model of civilization. Most power should not be concentrated at the federal, state, [i<]or[/i<] city level. I think it'd be far wiser to concentrate power at the township or community level.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            “Define people’s “basic instincts.” Personally, I reject the notion that people are, at their core, solely greedy self-interested.” they’re not! people are good!

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            Then, generally speaking, we agree.

            • Meadows
            • 8 years ago

            He’s joking. It’s common knowledge that “every interest is self-interest”. You can’t prove that one wrong.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            no i’m not. I believe that people are good. obviously people have to take care of what’s best for them, but that doesn’t mean they’re selfish. People are hard wired for community, and family. what’s best for me, might not be what’s best for me, if you understand what i mean.

            • Meadows
            • 8 years ago

            [b<]Every[/b<] interest is self-interest.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            sure, to a certain extent, but its in my self interest to see you happy, healthy, and capable. Arguing for selfishness, and stipulating the philosophical motivations for human behavior are 2 different things

        • paulWTAMU
        • 8 years ago

        that would be nearly the point.

    • danny e.
    • 8 years ago

    Now that we’ve discussed the causes, let’s discuss the solution: Dwight Schrute in “SUPER”

    [url<]http://www.amazon.com/Super/dp/B005GIS6T8/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1313945758&sr=8-3[/url<] 🙂

      • albundy
      • 8 years ago

      if you enjoy ellen paige having her head blown off, then sure…i guess it will do.

        • danny e.
        • 8 years ago

        no spoiler tags = lame. 🙂

      • danny e.
      • 8 years ago

      shut up crime.

    • danny e.
    • 8 years ago

    Eliminate discipline of the child, take away family guidance, tear the justice system apart until it’s more about protecting the criminal and what you’re left with is selfishness without fear of authority. Selfishness without love or even respect for any others.

    Then take the undisciplined, selfish and teach them entitlement. Teach them that success is owed to them by society and that the other successfull are simply cheaters and don’t deserve what they have.

    This has nothing to do with unemployment. Not suprised to see many here claim that as part of the problem since that’s part of the lie that has led us here – blame the situation rather than the criminal. Tell the criminal that their not having a job is someone elses fault and they have the right to that job. Tell the criminals that the government should take care of them and keep them voting for the party that keeps them enslaved in their misery… getting just enough to get by without working or earning anything. Keep someone in bondage to a government check and you keep them voting for the party that promises to continue providing such check. Look at Detroit.

    It is a lie. Making the victims into the criminals and the rioting criminals into the victims. The lie that it is the duty of society to provide for the selfish sluggard.

    Everyone can make up their own mind what to do when the situation is bad. Hurting others and destroying others property or stealing from others is criminal behavior that only some choose. There are many poor people that do not choose this route. There are many unemployeed people that do not choose this route.

    Sadly, both economically and morally, I think we’re past the point of no return.

      • danny e.
      • 8 years ago

      And if you honestly think it’s about unemployment:

      [url<]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/21/cleveland-rapper-machine-gun-kelly-arrested-at-flash-mob-event/[/url<] [quote<]Amid chaotic scenes, shown in video posted on YouTube, Strongsville police arrested a shirtless Baker when he refused to get off a table. He was later charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The charges, however, did not appear to faze the 21-year-old rapper, who signed with major hip-hop label Bad Boy records earlier this month. After being released Saturday night, he posted on Facebook, "If havin fun with my fans and bringin the rage back to my hometown means I have to be arrested...then keep pullin the cuffs out.[/quote<]

        • Cuhulin
        • 8 years ago

        That’s it. When lacking any common sense, quote Fox News. R Kelly is a bum. Citing one guy is anecdotal, not evidence.

          • trackerben
          • 8 years ago

          Anecdotal evidence of evils?
          Or just evidence of anecdotal evils…

          [url<]http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html[/url<] The Frivolity of Evil Theodore Dalrymple "...In any case, the extent of the evil that I found, though far more modest than the disasters of modern history, is nonetheless impressive. From the vantage point of one six-bedded hospital ward, I have met at least 5,000 perpetrators of the kind of violence I have just described and 5,000 victims of it: nearly 1 percent of the population of my city—or a higher percentage, if one considers the age-specificity of the behavior. And when you take the life histories of these people, as I have, you soon realize that their existence is as saturated with arbitrary violence as that of the inhabitants of many a dictatorship. Instead of one dictator, though, there are thousands, each the absolute ruler of his own little sphere, his power circumscribed by the proximity of another such as he. Violent conflict, not confined to the home and hearth, spills out onto the streets. Moreover, I discovered that British cities such as my own even had torture chambers: run not by the government, as in dictatorships, but by those representatives of slum enterprise, the drug dealers. Young men and women in debt to drug dealers are kidnapped, taken to the torture chambers, tied to beds, and beaten or whipped. Of compunction there is none—only a residual fear of the consequences of going too far..."

          • danny e.
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<] "R Kelly is a bum".[/quote<] nothing to do with R Kelly. If you actually read the story, you'd see that. Also the point was simply that people do dumb things just out of boredom and the fact that they have no fear of punishment because rarely is there any. I was pointing to an example, as this case is not similar really similar to the others.

      • Cuhulin
      • 8 years ago

      It has everything to do with unemployment, once you’ve also not given them any sense of discipline or purpose!

      We have built a society that is about money from a job. Then we send the jobs away (overseas, mostly).

      The austerity laws are passed by people attacking those kids and their families as worthless non-contributors.

      And you expect any other result than their disagreeing?

        • danny e.
        • 8 years ago

        that is the lie.
        continue feeding the lie and the problem will continue expanding.
        There are many jobless who do not resort to hurting others or blaming others. I came to america with nothing … most of these people had more going for them than I had going for me except discipline from parents and a respect for authority.

        Only the weak blame others in situation where you are what you make of yourself.

          • A_Pickle
          • 8 years ago

          Only the stupid cling to meaningless talking points and value systems when there’s plenty of data to support the contrary. I know that your conservative overlords have taught you that hard work, usage of The Belt on disobedient children, and Christianity makes for good people — but reality indicates that, [i<]yes[/i<], in fact, income has a lot to do with the incidence rate of crime. Poverty and crime are almost directly proportional. Now, you can sit here and claim that their financial situation is no justification for their actions and that such an excuse is for "the weak," or you can accept the data for what it is [i<]and try to fix the fucking problem[/i<]. I don't care how you think you need to be to be a good person. I do care when you start to suggest that we should ignore data collection and analysis and try to make a better society on [i<]your[/i<] gut.

            • danny e.
            • 8 years ago

            It is no one else responsibility to provide for me. That is my responsibility. It is not, however, my responsibility to provide for your lazy ass.

            It is not the hard-working or people on the right that cause these issues. They are caused by the liberal-thinking (like you) who think the lazy the responsibility of the hard working.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            I never suggested it was anyone but your responsibility to provide for yourself, YOU assumed that’s what I believe based on your internal stereotype of, apparently, anyone who believes in anything liberal/progressive. If you actually intend to solve the problems befacing society, then honest debate is needed — and honest debate means doing away with your stereotypes entirely and possessing a willingness to admit that you may be wrong. Someone who believes in socialized healthcare, higher taxation on the rich, and pacifism [i<]is allowed to believe in those things[/i<]. It doesn't make them a bad person, nor does it make them un-entitled to the human rights that you and I enjoy. For the record, yes, there are [i<]some[/i<] liberal/progressive ideals that I do believe in. If your ideology is sooooo much better, than your ideas should be able to stand on their own merits. To date, I have found that very few conservative ideals stand on their own merits, according to the data. I don't disagree that, in order to get what you want, you should have to shoulder a load. My dispute comes with where society is actually going in regards to that -- conservatives often [i<]say[/i<] that they want to empower the individual, that they want to give the individual a fishing pole instead of a fish, and I respect that. However, what conservatives [i<]say[/i<] and what they [i<]actually do[/i<] often do not coincide. I agree -- in a society where millions (and, in some cases, billions) of people must coexist tranquilly, everyone needs to be pulling their fair share towards that end. It is my opinion that, in order to successfully pull that off, you need a healthy mixture of free enterprise [i<]and[/i<] government regulation. It is also my opinion that, to most successfully pull that off, you need freedom. Companies do not inherently deserve freedom, as they are not people. People inherently deserve freedom. To pin this on one worldview or another is just stupid. I won't deny that the ideological wet dreams of the left have been, at times, unsuccessful... but to pretend that somehow the ideological wet dreams of the right have always been successful is nothing short of deliberate ignorance.

    • FireGryphon
    • 8 years ago

    Grand theories abound to explain worldwide symptoms, but from my personal experience as a teacher in the USA I see that young people are not held accountable for anything. Consequences are rarely enforced. If a child doesn’t learn, it’s not their fault because the teacher, parents, or environment are to blame.

    There’s a significant push in schools to do away with giving ‘0’ as a grade if a kid doesn’t turn in work, because it’s so hard to recover from a grade of ‘0’. Even in elementary school they know they can only be left back in three of the 12 grades of primary and secondary education, and that usually never happens because principals don’t want anyone failing so the numbers look good.

    There are no consequences for bad behavior including blood-drawing brawls or theft, as reporting it would reflect poorly on the school; kids are simply sent back to class. Nothing is the kids’ faults and they usually get second, third, fourth, etc. chances. It’s to the point where I saw a 6th grade girl curse out and physically assault her mother in the school hallway, and the mother just stood there and said to the teacher, ‘I give up’.

    When you set a precedent like that in an environment in which kids spend most of their day, the idea that they are invincible gets driven home early and clearly.

    When it comes to behavior and learning acuity, the environment in which you are raised plays a very important role, but we’ve taken it to the point of telling kids that they aren’t to blame and just giving them what they need. I’m not sure if there’s a better way, but it’s easy for me to see how a child raised to be invincible will assault a police officer.

    • spigzone
    • 8 years ago

    Endemic, blatant and CONSEQUENCE FREE lying, corruption and thievery on an industrial scale from the very highest levels of government and society set the tone. Simian genetics run amok.

    The system is literally ‘rotten to the core” and America is leading the world into chaos and perdition.

    It’s going to be a very active time for the generation just entering their teens.

    • oldog
    • 8 years ago

    Well, say what you will but I know, with certainty, from reading the comments posted on web sites like the TechReport that this has nothing to do with violence in movies or in video games.

    • RAMBO
    • 8 years ago

    Not all of these groups are rioting because of the same reasons. The economy being crap here in the US-no thanks to groups in government like the tea baggers Bad parenting or no parenting, social injustice and people who want to show their anger, people who just want to destroy and cause mayhem for the pure pleasure of it, The follow the crowd mentality people. A-holes and douche bags with no respect for others or law. You pretty much have to get the answer from them, and ask “why”. You have to look at all the people involved and ask what happened that led to this situation. Anger is a secondary emotion, it comes from being wronged or just being angry and releasing it on others, so “which is it” in every case must be examined.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 8 years ago

      No, that’s all you democrats, and your mob mentality union riots. Hurr collective bargaining rights. How about individual rights? While we’re destroying individual rights, let’s all put all our money into a big collective pot for the corrupt politicians to steal too. Freedom and personal liberty are outdated concepts. Let’s let the goverment manage us like cattle instead.

      I like how you blame the tea party for the economy, when the economy tanking is clearly the fault of corrupt corporations and an out of control government. No, the tea party is the solution, not the problem. (Aside from the sarah palin neo-con hijacked groups.)
      [url<]http://www.rlc.org/2010/02/10/hijacked-tea-party/[/url<]

        • Antimatter
        • 8 years ago

        The Tea Party was actually happy with US debt downgrade.
        [url<]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/09/us-credit-downgrade[/url<]

          • l33t-g4m3r
          • 8 years ago

          The “tea party” is a mix of all types of people, who generally want to reform different aspects of the goverment. That includes democrats, republicans, and independents. I refrain from blanket statements about the tea party for that reason, since no one section exactly speaks for the next, even if the basics are the same.

          That said, I’m from the founding ron paul libertarian side, and I can’t say I’m exactly happy with the downgrade, but knew it was inevitable. The country is printing money like the Weimar Republic, and that’s not sustainable. The debt limit was all political posturing to allow greater spending, all while there was no real threat of a default. Of course the credit rating was downgraded, since we failed to stop the reckless spending.
          [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqfm0zrRs9Q[/url<] [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3U39GLFL_4[/url<] I heard Cut, Cap, and balance could have saved the credit rating, but then again the goverment was never considering living within their means, so it was all lip service. That's what the Boehner plan was anyway. The only positve side is that this is such a big problem you can't ignore it anymore. (But is that really a positive? I suppose it can be if the problems get fixed, otherwise we're in for one hell of a ride.) Ron's been talking about these issues for a good while, even before the crisis hit, so maybe now we'll get reform. [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o&feature=related[/url<]

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]The "tea party" is a mix of all types of people...[/quote<] Get your facts straight, no it isn't. The Tea Party is a mix of Republicans -- about 50% Sarah Palin neoconservatives and about 50% Ron Paul libertarian conservatives. That you happened to meet that one Democrat at a Tea Party rally that one time doesn't mean you get to (like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the talking heads on Fox) claim that it's a diverse spectrum of people. [i<]It isn't[/i<]. The Tea Party is overwhelmingly comprised of middle class white Republicans. That's not to say it's a bad thing -- white Republicans are human beings, and they possess human rights to free speech and the right to assemble like the rest of us. I just question the need for the "Tea Party," as it seems like it's just a bait-and-switch -- people are told that "No, the Tea Party isn't like that at all! We're not ALL Republicans, we're just concerned Americans from a diverse array of backgrounds!" And then, there's suddenly a deluge of Republican talking points, Republican policy ideas, and Obama this and Obama that and Obama's destroying this nation! I'm sorry, but studies say it ain't so. [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Membership_and_demographics[/url<]

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I am afraid you simply won’t do. much too much clarity in your posts.

            You are now part of my clan.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        You remind me of the type that thinks society can survive as long as you have a shotgun in the back window of your pickup truck.

        People like you are scary.

          • sweatshopking
          • 8 years ago

          he reminds you of that, because THAT’S WHO HE IS.

    • Code:[M]ayhem
    • 8 years ago

    When the animals are running wild in the streets it’s time to shoot them like dogs and send the bill for the bullets to the parents.

    Then sterilize them.

    • My Johnson
    • 8 years ago

    I’ll just leave this here:

    [url<]http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/two-riots.jpg[/url<]

      • bthylafh
      • 8 years ago

      Cute, but a bit too obviously trying to prove a political point.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      Strongly agree.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Given the fine example set in Libya, it follows that the rebels who expressed their grievances against the establishment last night by burning and looting half of London and other cities around the UK should swiftly be given their own embassy and declared the legitimate government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. David Cameron and the Queen need to relinquish power immediately now that their authority to rule has been so clearly and justifiably undermined. The actions by police to disperse these rebels also amounts to an international war crime and mandates an immediate humanitarian intervention from the NATO powers. If Cameron and the Queen fail to step down and recognize the rebels as the legitimate government, US warplanes are on standby to enforce a “no fly zone” over Great Britain. Reports are also circulating that NATO could target the Prime Minister and his entire family for assassination if he refuses to vacate London. The rebels who are attempting to liberate themselves from a corrupt regime by ransacking JD Sports clothing outlets should be be embraced, commended, and supported by the international community.[/quote<] [url<]http://www.infowars.com/cameron-to-step-down-recognize-rioters-as-legitimate-government-satire/[/url<]

    • JLW777
    • 8 years ago

    One of the main cause which I feel that contribute towards majority of the youths’ discontent is the feeling of entitlement. I worked hard to get through 4 years of university. Therefore I feel adequate to comment.

    Bottomline, high school education grants u proportioned salary\Wage with the job that utilize that skill level. No one is going to give u the new car or that ipad 2 u longing for. Sooner the thought of work gets implemented in the youth’s concept, the sooner the frequency of youth revolting gets curbed

    • trackerben
    • 8 years ago

    Historically many instances of internal rot and civilizational collapse are preceded by disturbing rises in weird crimes. We have some in England. Attacking policemen is one thing, but attacking firemen and rescuers is something else nasty. Most disturbing is when ordinary, decent people are unashamedly attacked just for trying to stop civil threats, when crazy eddiness reaches its extremes and perversions of morality and behavior slowly become the norm. It happens routinely in French immigrant banlieus, but now England is showing symptoms.

    [url<]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/ealing-riot-victim-family-police[/url<] Murder investigation launched after Ealing riot victim dies "...Bowes, originally from Bournemouth, lived in a house on Haven Green, minutes away from where he was knocked to the ground on Monday night. It is believed he lived there alone. He was attacked after remonstrating with youths trying to set fire to two industrial bins on Springbridge Road, near the Arcadia shopping centre, which was being looted...."

    • Flatland_Spider
    • 8 years ago

    There are two separate issues here. The London riots are because they feel the system doesn’t represent them any more, and they are probably correct. The US government has become incredibly corrupt, and it doesn’t represent the needs and interests of it’s citizens as much as it represents special interests with lots of money.

    The other, school is out, and kids are dumb. It’s well known that once school gets out the crime rate goes up. It happened here in Tulsa. As soon as the school year ended, there were a rash of home invasions and robberies. They stopped when a pair broke into an unmarked police car, and another pair were greeted by a home owner with a shotgun.

    Kids are dumb because they are kids, and they have lots of free time. It’s a combination for lots of mischief. Been there done that, don’t have many regrets.

    Police also don’t have the greatest public image. A lot of it is their fault. If you’re going to cop an attitude, don’t expect be to be pleasant.

    • holophrastic
    • 8 years ago

    I think it’s much more basic than that. We now live in a world where children are forced to go to school for the first 20 to 25 years of their lives. Which means that you have 20-year olds who still haven’t begun any sort of career, they’ve been working crazy hard at school for what seems like forever — and is in their lives — with many more years to go; and they’ve earned nothing. Their earning potential is still nothing too.

    So they want what they see adults have, but have no way to get it. So they want what effectively is communism, to be treated equally, since they work hard and get nothing.

    The solution is very simple. Get children into a career much earlier — by age 15. Education needn’t stop, but tehy need to have a career — not just a job. I certainly did, but I was an exception for a lot of good reasons.

    Otherwise, it’s simply not fair to any of them. Would you want to be 23, just finished your bachelor’s degree, still not qualified for any high-paying job, and still see fancy cars driving by, big houses, and wealthy people? You’ve spent all 23 yeras of life working hard, and still have loans to re-pay, and are told to consider advance degrees and more education?

    • eitje
    • 8 years ago

    Why are these things happening? Because they *can*.

    You were all teenagers once – why did you do anything? Because you were able and willing to do something you’d never done before.

    Speed-of-light communication makes organizing large groups possible, so that’s what they do.

    • Trident Troll
    • 8 years ago

    Running tally of North American incidents:
    [url<]http://violentflashmobs.com/[/url<]

      • eitje
      • 8 years ago

      It’s not a flash mob if it’s one person beating up another person.

      • machinegear
      • 8 years ago

      Interesting link.

      I read through all the August articles. After that, I got bored. It was as if I was reading the same article over and over again about the same miscreant group: young, black males.

    • Fragnificent
    • 8 years ago

    I discussed this among a few people here and the #1 consensus was essentially, lack of respect for elders, and the Internet Age combined with a shitty job outlook. The minority vote was that the majority of kids now have no parents at home, they both work, so the Interwebs is the parent. I even had one person tell me that essentially, feminism is to blame and we need women back in the kitchen. :$ I honestly think it has something to do with groupthink. You go online and see stuff like Anonymous and mobs of kids at the mall and stuff like that and kids now think they I don’t have to behave, I can do whatever I want in revolt and it’s like I’m a hero and sh*t! If you ever read sites like reddit you can see that behavior like this is considered sticking it to The Man, it is often idolized, frequently encouraged, and sometimes, publicly planned.

    What do I personally think? I Think the concept of Authority has become diminished in many people’s minds, they don’t see the need for it. The HiveMind concept is widespread, “do what ALL the kids do! “I think people are educated and annoyed at the current state of the world. Thanks in large part to the internet, kids are smarter earlier now and I even know some 15 and 16 yr olds who are acutely aware that:

    1.) there are no jobs for them after college due to the shitty economy
    2.) they will prob be in debt for a very long time due to college loans
    3.) here’s the key….they realize (I have heard some young people actually mention this) they are born into a world run by super rich people who have control over your money and essentially, your future, at the moment, and they can’t do anything about it. I kind of feel this way too, but I am not a looter/violence supporter really.

    Kids are rioting partly because its what everyone else is doing, but, it started because the effect of groups like Anonymous/reddit/etc and so forth is to tell people that they no longer have to do what they are told, because that doesn’t effect change, and change is desperately needed. It won’t come by voting for different people, basically the rich elite are the only ones getting put in power, the harvard graduates and super rich, etc etc.

    In a way though, isn’t stuff like this how our country was first born? People got pissed, and eventually got violent, and then we got what we wanted. Since America is a far cry from the democracy it was founded as, maybe some riots aren’t a bad thing all around the world. 😉 Just sayin.

      • trackerben
      • 8 years ago

      As someone who in my travels has weathered or barely avoided or escaped three violent civil-military uprisings, three major national “revolutions”, and about two dozen riots/mass actions/rallies unruly enough to halt normal life in various capitals – and was within reverberating earshot distance of two bombings planned by extremists of restive minorities or “underclasses”, one of which saw bits of an unfortunate policeman land on a neighboring tenant’s roof…

      … I can assure you that like wars, violent uprisings and their associated incidents are times when people can get very broken in both body and mind. Which cannot be a good thing on principle and is only barely acceptable ex post facto because apparently, in about one in every ten or so “revolutions”, the direction of future governance was decided in favor of something more modern.

      That is, when the historians can actually tell and/or agree.

      Edit: Some exaggeration there and a minor miscount, so a correction

    • machinegear
    • 8 years ago

    Max Hastings summarized the London (and possibly US flash mobs(?) ) situation best in his recent article:

    [url<]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html[/url<] I couldn't add more than what Mr. Hastings already wrote. I highly recommend this article as required reading for those interested in truly understanding the roots of this particular Friday Night Topic.

      • bthylafh
      • 8 years ago

      This is not a time to demonize your political opponents.

      In fact, that’s pretty tiresome most of the time.

        • machinegear
        • 8 years ago

        Your response outright discounts the article sited. Did you read it? If so, what points in the article do you dispute? When arguments are made issues can become more clearly understood.

      • trackerben
      • 8 years ago

      Eye-opening article. The situation is predictable, was predicted.

      [url<]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401340_pf.html[/url<] The End of Europe By Robert J. Samuelson Wednesday, June 15, 2005 Europe as we know it is slowly going out of business. Since French and Dutch voters rejected the proposed constitution of the European Union, we've heard countless theories as to why: the unreality of trying to forge 25 E.U. countries into a United States of Europe; fear of ceding excessive power to Brussels, the E.U. capital; and an irrational backlash against globalization. Whatever their truth, these theories miss a larger reality: Unless Europe reverses two trends -- low birthrates and meager economic growth -- it faces a bleak future of rising domestic discontent and falling global power. Actually, that future has already arrived. ... *** It was observed long ago. When men are paid merely for existing and pay nothing for their misses, most will not worry too much if they miss too many marks in too mediocre an existence.

      • danny e.
      • 8 years ago

      Yes. First article I’ve seen that points at the real causes.
      Most want to ignore the real causes.

      All you have to do in many situations is look at who the rioters are and who the targets are. For example, the hard working asian store owners in London and in Los Angeles. Attacked by the lazy scum of society – preppy kids who dont know what hard work is and ghetto kids who dont know what hard work is.

        • A_Pickle
        • 8 years ago

        Translation: “This article is correct because it coincides with my world view.”

      • albundy
      • 8 years ago

      hah! “reader comments are currently unavailable”

      cant imagine why.

      you Brits need to arm yourselves. when these killers break into your home, just make sure you have enough ammo.

      • Cuhulin
      • 8 years ago

      I think the article itself best exemplifies the problem about which Hastings writes: it takes no responsibility and blame someone else.

      The enitre “blame liberals” argument is one of not taking responsibility, It is most like, and often comes from people most like the undisciplined brats in the street.

      Arguing “those liberals” or “those right-wing nuts” doesn’t deal with any issues. It simply spawns hate, and that doesn’t get anything done.

    • Krogoth
    • 8 years ago

    None of this stuff is new at all. Civil unrest and general debauchery has existed since dawn of civilization.

    The only difference is that the advancements in communications and mass media makes us more aware of it.

    If you think riots in London and other places in first-world nations are bad? You haven’t seen anything. The anarchy that persist in the most war-torn, impoverished parts of the world make it look like a picnic.

      • trackerben
      • 8 years ago

      Agreed that immorality, lawlessness, and thievery represent the constant base condition of humanity. But the idea that what we are seeing now is just a statistical misreading of broad behaviors, that does little to explain historical outliers. Like how such behaviors were much fewer among Japanese, even after presumably convenient social breakdowns like the tsunami/nuclear emergency. Or how rampant criminality and incivility was rare among the poor chinese in pre-1970s west coast cities like SF, or the even poorer chinese beset by ethnic cleansings in Malaya/Singapore during the formation years. Mass media made us more aware of the vast differences between peoples/nations which are differentiated by their level of retention of the forms, if not the substance, of ancient Judeo-Christian teachings.

    • ShadowTiger
    • 8 years ago

    People always blame various things… but I think a core issue come to light here.

    Why do we commit crimes against eachother?

    The answer is that nobody teaches us how to make decisions, how to deal with a stressful situations, and how to not be selfish.

    Religion used to be a major influence, but now it almost meaningless for most people.

    Schools only teach us basic academics, they don’t teach problem solving, philosophy, or conflict resolution.

    Where are people supposed to learn how to coexist, how to be happy in life, how to change their lives for the better?

    Some people learn it as they go, if they are lucky. Most people end up miserable, clinging to their worldly possessions as life slips through their fingers, all the while making life worse for their fellow citizens.

      • SPOOFE
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]The answer is that nobody teaches us how to make decisions, how to deal with a stressful situations, and how to not be selfish.[/quote<] Sure they do. There's just a point where learned behavior gets trumped by innate behavior, usually associated with stress or emotion.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 8 years ago

    This is a GLOBAL issue. Look at Egypt. Egypt was also caused by google and various intelligence agencies. This is a world wide staged revolt for the democracy train. Next stop, totalitarianism and one world gov. If people want this issue to be fixed, stop ignoring the wealth gap, wealth redistribution, extreme regulation, extreme taxation, corrupt goverment, corrupt corporations, etc.

    Today’s youth have nothing. There are no jobs, there is no hope. If people are not going to help them, they will riot in the streets for justice, and that’s when the people looking to take advantage will come in. Say hello to marshall law. Wake up, stop ignoring the people around you, do something if you can. At least stop voting for the lesser of two evils, and vote for who would best serve the country.

    The youth are cornered and will gather to whomever claims they will help them, and that will most likely be a wolf in sheeps clothing. *cough* Obama *cough* We can’t keep letting the corrupt people in government steal our money, and continue to break laws. Corporations need to be held accountable too. Otherwise, it will be the end, and you will have brought it on yourself.

    PS. Socialism fails to work with a corrupt gov that steals from the pot. Stop supporting it, we need to go back to how the country originally was supposed to work. Look what happened with the berlin wall. Socialism falls against freedom.

    Also the statement, “the youth are revolting” could have a double meaning, which I agree that there is a segment of em that are.

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      I’m in favor of global governance. An organization [i<] like [/i<] the UN, or a greatly reformed UN could do much in mitigating these problems. the time for individual nations warring and stealing from each other is over. Nations with well defined borders, and fair laws will do much to mitigate the unrest. much of our problems come from the injustice international trade contributes. A global police force, with the ability to act suddenly would be a great deterrent to human rights violations, terrorism, and war. Global governance is part of the solution, not the problem. One currency should be on the table. We've got free movement of capital across international boundaries, why not labour? start voting me down.

        • Kaleid
        • 8 years ago

        Well, it wasn’t long time ago when certain countries tried to force upon everyone blasphemy laws. So the UN is not trust worthy on this either because it isn’t certain that free speech will be allowed.

          • sweatshopking
          • 8 years ago

          i’m not sure why you think it’s any different than a nation. Nations have constitutions, so can a world government.

            • Kaleid
            • 8 years ago

            While a system like that could in theory become good it could also lead to worldwide tyranny. Maybe not instantly but in time. So no thanks, I’d rather have nations and voluntary cooperation between these nations.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            sure it could. Kind of like what we’ve got now. You want voluntary cooperation? I am in favor of nations, just nations with responsibilities beyond what works for them, screw the rest.

            voluntary cooperation has proved a failure. On every level, it hasnt worked. Economies in ruins, environment destroyed, nations starving to death, global vigilantes running around (NATO) doing what they want, and being expensive, unorganized, and unilateral. What is it about voluntary cooperation you love? If a nation doesn’t like something, they just abstain, or with draw from the convention. There are no consequences. Accountability needs to be there, and until we have some sort of higher power, there wont be any more than the zero thats there now.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            if you’re going to vote me down, at least say why. what about the system we have is better? A constitution is a constitution. if you’re worried about “the man” there is enough of him around anyway.

            • VILLAIN_xx
            • 8 years ago

            I would be on your one world band wagon, but who do you think is going to run this wonderful and awesome global governance? You dont think “The Man” are salivating such an idea and you dont have any reasonable questions that there have been provocateurs with something to gain from the worlds conflicts and dramas?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I would hope, by the people, for the people, would be just as applicable.

            of course there have been people gaining from conflicts and dramas. i’m not naive, but i think having a global government might assist in closing some loop holes, and setting standards that have to be adhered to. Something like the International civil Aviation Organization, would be a good place to start on the technical side.

            a system with no veto’s (so no security council), an election process with say, a 2 year term on a council, with no re-election, would do much to equalize much of the worlds problems.

            What’s the concern? they’ll force you to be muslim? I think the drafting of a constitution would be tricky, but not impossible.

            Of course it would be a difficult thing to setup, but I think in the long run, it’s got to happen. the world can’t keep functioning this way.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            It’s like pandora’s box. I don’t think you can just stuff everyone back into it.

        • RAMBO
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah, I second this. Execute human rights violators and execute the corrupt. I wish we had a device that could detect racism, sexism, or hate based on religious bias so we could just get rid of them.

          • sweatshopking
          • 8 years ago

          note [i<] quite [/i<] what i had in mind.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 8 years ago

            Sure it was, since that’s exactly what we’d get under such a system. We’re better off not giving them the capability to do so, no matter the potential benefits.

            “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. ”
            -Franklin.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            see my post to cuhulin. you don’t know any more than i do. you can make assumptions, but so can i.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            No, you’re just an ignorant liberal who [i<]clearly[/i<] doesn't understand that his own worldview will lead to enslavement of working people. GOSH. [/sarcasm, btw]

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            That’s lieberal if you’re going to play this game.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            conservatives say i’m too progressive, progressives say i’m too conservative. What’s a guy to do? I’m all over the place!

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            Where do [i<]YOU[/i<] fall on the political hypercube?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I’m all over the place, depending on the issue. Economics, i’m generally leftish, being more of an institutionalist than anything. On issues of “morality”, i’m generally centerish. I’m not partisan, and abhor partisan politics. Most of my views coincide with my religion, the Baha’i Faith.

            I figure the worlds pretty crazy, and the issues are spiritual in nature. we need to sort out of spiritual ills in order to fix the material ones. Until we all know that unity is a necessity, we’re not going to fix the issues.

        • Cuhulin
        • 8 years ago

        There are two problems with global government:

        1) It provides no choices. There is no other country to leave for, if one doesn’t like it.

        2) Inherently, it is too big and too far from any person. The result, inevitably, is going to bureaucratic, not responsive to any individual need, and basically totalitarian.

        This just will not work.

          • sweatshopking
          • 8 years ago

          you’re making assumptions, you have no EVIDENCE to prove such a thing. You’re the same position i am, and going on what you THINK, and hoping you’re right.

            • Cuhulin
            • 8 years ago

            Actually, my first point is a matter of definition. If you have world government, you don’t have competing places to got to, in order to get away from and compete with the world government — that’s what it means to have a world government.

            As to the second, I believe we have a lot of evidence in existing existing governments that the larger populations and distances covered, the more bureaucratic they get. I didn’t attempt to cite the evidence in the post, but it’s visible in the governments of China, the US, the former USSR, and for that matter the Roman Catholic Church — large, distant and bureaucratic systems developed. My conclusion that it cannot work is based on those examples.

            I understand the reasons for wanting global government. I think the points you made in favor of it are valid concerns. Perhaps, someday, improved communications, greater office efficiency and a more limited sense of what government does will permit it to work. We just don’t have that yet.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            Your first point, you’re correct. You WOULD have nations all adhering to certain standards. Are you wanting to go places where you can’t exchange money based on international agreements? what about fly on planes that don’t adhere to international requirements with pilots that aren’t qualified? what about going to countries that don’t recognize passports?

            there are a million great ways that the world is currently globally governed, without being overburdened with bureaucracy. that’s not to say there isn’t room for improvement!

            I do understand your concern, and i think it’s valid. I don’t imagine a global government to be involved in day to day governance, more to be concerned with issues like famine, war, etc. Major issues, that need to be resolved. Certainly trade issues, and environmental standards etc. might end up there too, but that’s a ways down the pipe.

            for a lot of issues currently, there is no resolution. they’re just left alone, or made worse. almost anything would be better than what we’ve got now.

      • obarthelemy
      • 8 years ago

      you do realize that western germany is a fairly”socialist” country, with laws that would lead your run-of-the-ill republican to a rapid coronary ?

      i think the issue is not so much how social vs capitalist your country is, but how corrupt it is. Corruption is unfairness, and our brain is hardwired to reject unfairness. Living in a corrupt society automatically makes us reject it.

      knowing that regular people pay 35% income tax, and rich ones 17; that being black and/or poor multiplies your chance of being convicted to death, or higher sentences, for the same crime richer whiter guys get nothing; that bankers can costs us billions, and walk away with millions of bonuses for it, that presidents can declare a blow job isn’t sex, and make up reasons for going to war to boost ratings and distribute spoils to friendly corporations… unsurprisingly, that leads to people growing disaffected with society.

    • Jigar
    • 8 years ago

    This fever is spreading in India as well and IMO following is the reason why this incidence are increasing.

    “You cannot beat your child”. This is the biggest mistake of law makers. Because of this law Kids don’t have fear of their parents. As soon as they discover this they think they are the superman. And this lost souls only multiply as soon as they meet each other, eventually becoming a mob.

    I remember my parents would beat me if i made a mistake and today i thank them because those beating only taught me not to make those mistakes.

    People who think London riots are just because of joblessness need to know that my brother lives in London, he doesn’t speak English and still that dude is earning 120 pounds in 8 hours.

      • Jambe
      • 8 years ago

      My parents whacked me the odd time or two growing up but I never feared them and I’m a productive, polite member of society. I don’t think living in fear of anything is particularly healthy.

      I don’t personally like the idea of corporal punishment but I might agree that certain gene and culture combinations may necessitate it to a certain degree. In some kids and in some environments, a nurturing, explanatory style of parenting may produce better results than an intimidating/beating style would, and perhaps vice-versa.

      [quote<]People who think London riots are just because of joblessness need to know that my brother lives in London, he doesn't speak English and still that dude is earning 120 pounds in 8 hours.[/quote<] You know an upstanding Londoner, therefore riotousness isn't related to joblessness? O_o Now I'll grant you joblessness isn't the only problem, but surely it's one of the root issues.

        • SPOOFE
        • 8 years ago

        [quote<] I don't think living in fear of anything is particularly healthy.[/quote<] I think there are some behaviors, actions, or choices that should make a person live in fear.

      • mesyn191
      • 8 years ago

      People haven’t beaten their children for decades here in the US and I think the UK too, yet now riots are springing up because of that? Really?

      Also from what I’ve read your brother is probably a corner case. Supposedly many only get 50GBP a week to live on through the dole. I was told that a OK paying job there was 800GBP a month…

        • Firestarter
        • 8 years ago

        There’s a lot of gray area between pampering your kids and abusing them. And I agree that our society pamper the kids too much in general. Child abuse is no joke, but when the first thing your doctor asks when you come by after your kid walks into a door is ‘DID YOU DO THIS?!’, you know something is messed up.

        • Voldenuit
        • 8 years ago

        Agreed. The ‘cushy safety net’ in the UK isn’t all that different from the US. Jobseeker Allowance (JSA) is only good for 6 months, just the same as many state unemployment benefits in the US. And £47 a week (the typical JSA payout) is barely enough to live on.

        • shank15217
        • 8 years ago

        What bullshit, good parents will spank their kids when they are out of line, there is difference between spanking your kids and hurting them. The only reason its outlawed is because of cases where parents actually abuse their kids out of external frustration. Kids have died or been mutilated so a blanket law is made by overzealous law makers trying to get a vote to ban anybody touching a child. Teachers cannot even touch their kids these days, they cannot even yell at them, they need to explain away that the kid’s behavior is wrong. Kids should fear and respect authority to understand why authority exists and then rebel against injustice cause by that authority. These days its just wanton violence.

          • mesyn191
          • 8 years ago

          Getting to beat some more “respect for authority” into your kids will not improve this situation at all since children had plenty of respect for authority without such measures for decades. Your attempts to inspire respect will only inspire fear and resentment or disgust with authority, not respect. They will likely lash out even more or even come to hate authority.

          Bear in mind kids grow up fast into adults. You won’t have much chance beat them into submission before they become of age and either leave the house and hate you never to return or perhaps become socially dysfunctional and become nearly totally unable live a “normal” life and end up repeating the same mistakes that were beaten into them by beating their own children. Oh wait I’m sorry I mean “instilling respect and fear for authority”.

      • bthylafh
      • 8 years ago

      You can discipline your child without actually beating them. Sticking ’em in a corner if they’re young, taking away things, etc.

      The trick is to be consistent and to make it understood who’s in charge and what’s expected, and praise when they do the right things.

      Physical punishment should be reserved for when the kid’s doing something dangerous and won’t stop.

        • Xylker
        • 8 years ago

        Do you have children?

        I am not making an assertion one way or the other, but I would value your opinion more if I knew you had experience with the subject at hand.

          • bthylafh
          • 8 years ago

          I do, in fact.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        And I’ve learned over the last few years that consistency is HARD. But being consistent is as important as anything.

        I grew up in a house where the first response was to hit the kid. My sister now runs a house like that. I vowed when I had kids I wouldn’t. My girl is happy and pretty well-behaved for 3 years old, and it didn’t require yelling and screaming or hitting her. It’s very gratifying to see that she respects her mom and me (as much as a 3 year old does; she wants to do things to make us happy) and happy and playful all at the same time. Perfect? No. Good? Yes.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      I’m sure if you burn all the women in India that will solve all the wife burnings too.

      • Coran Fixx
      • 8 years ago

      We can’t all be prostitutes, it would ruin the market

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        Why pay for the sex when you can have the cow for free? /Jay

      • Kaleid
      • 8 years ago

      The fear of punishment is the easy way to raise up kids. It’s also the wrong way (emotional scars that can sit there for their entire lives, which they then take on others, as a form of projection). If you cannot succeed in teaching your kid something as basic as the golden rule then the parent is incompetent. Teach sympathy/empathy, put them into other people’s shoes.

    • FatherXmas
    • 8 years ago

    When times get tough, people are willing to play the odds.

    Group of kids Flash rob a 7-11, they’re thinking that their chance of getting caught is lower in a large group.

    Group of kids surround a lone police officer or patrol car. They know that the police aren’t going to use deadly force, looks bad. Also the police have no idea how many people in that mob are armed as well. The kids know that as well.

    • Jambe
    • 8 years ago

    Meh. In a nutshell, it’s the joblessness, as others have stated, and that’s a product of the huge concentration of wealth and control in the top 1-5% of the Western World. And increased industrial efficiency and outsourcing, etc. Service-based economies are probably more fickle anyway, and when you don’t prioritize education a service-based economy is surely even worse off.

    Tangentially, I abhor the phrase “moral fiber”. How absurd. “Kellog Brand Moral Fiber: Cleans your poop chute and leaves you with a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority<]smug sense of superiority[/url<]. Them gays, them vidya games, them highfalutin university-professors, them gyrating hips, etc. Woe are we, who make a spectacle of ourselves and lay claim to knowledge, etc. How arrogant and debauched and JESUS JESUS JESUS SAVE US JESUS! Perhaps a bit of hyperbole there but it's the subtext to a lot of this hysteria it's ridiculous.

      • bthylafh
      • 8 years ago

      As a poster on another site puts it, “JESUS JESUS JESUS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH”.

        • Jambe
        • 8 years ago

        It is ironic and pitiful; so many people consistently working against their own interests. It’s not as if either party could change things, which is even sadder.

        *shrug* What amazes me is that people are so remarkably ignorant. These sorts of things have occurred countless times throughout recorded history and yet no no, [i<]this time[/i<] it's different and special because I'm witness to it! Therefore *theology* or therefore *cockamamie political woo* or therefore *old-school parenting would straighten everything out*. Riiiight.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          I like that you shoot down every suggested solution and offer so much of your own. Oh, wait…

            • Jambe
            • 8 years ago

            … what?

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Failure in reading comprehension plus knee jerk response = -1.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      So what you’re saying is, it’s wrong for people to try to lead their families by example? We should just stoop to whatever level it takes to get into that 1-5%?

      Not that I’m an amazing example. I’ve spent a portion of my life as a blatant example of what not to do. I just woke up and smelled the coffee eventually, and even still, I’m not perfect.

        • hansmuff
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t think that’s what Jambe is saying at all. He seems to be decrying the state of things without taking a position. Which is way better than what most people seem to be doing, which is to act like they are just temporarily held back millionaires themselves.

        • Jambe
        • 8 years ago

        How’d you get that from my post? Massive wealth disparity isn’t a good thing.

        Families are important and leading by example is a good thing… supposing the example is good and that it was done for decent reasons.

    • hansmuff
    • 8 years ago

    Young people are sometimes misguided and confused, but there is a reason for the discontent. Their parents are not content. Kids feel the squeeze just as much as adults do, and we’re all being squeezed.

    I am not advocating their actions, but I am not upset by the fact that these eruptions happen. As one of the UK rioters so aptly said, there were peaceful demonstrations weeks before, zero press coverage. Burn down a few shops? Cameras all over.

    We’re doing the wrong thing in ignoring and writing off the youth. We are doing the wrong thing in not questioning what feasible motives they may have. This is not going to get better, it will get worse. If you don’t believe we’re all getting robbed by the elite, well continue to berate the youth and suffer the consequences.

    I am not youth. I’m 38, have 2 kids. My kids know and feel things are tight, even though I work fulltime and don’t rely on government handouts. I feel no ill will towards those who do hit a bad streak, and I feel very upset at our government for inaction (that’s the US government) in the face of years of financial rape from the elite, that is banks, investors, regulators.

    The youth isn’t stupid and the few who are acting completely off the wall aren’t representative. Adults wouldn’t hold themselves responsible for bankers, insurance company CEOs and corrupt politicians either.

    It’s time that the lower and middle classes get their fair share back. That social programs are reinstated and paid for. That retirement money doesn’t just disappear. Until then, here comes the riots, the violence, the aggression.

    • mcnabney
    • 8 years ago

    Scott – things weren’t any different in the past. The exact same kind of crap that is going on in the Plaza now happened in Westport two decades ago. The difference is that the shootings in Westport actually resulted in deaths instead of injuries. It is a general fallacy of humanity to view the past as being perfect and the ‘now’ being deficient.

    What is aggravating the situation for youth now is based upon three key problems:

    1. Extremely high youth unemployment. Now that 40 year olds are working a McDonalds the teenagers have limited opportunities for employment. With nothing productive to do they need to go somewhere that is FREE to kill time. Hanging out at the Plaza doesn’t cost a penny. Back in the 80’s teenagers were harrassing shoppers at local malls – this is nothing new.

    2. Communication. It once took weeks or months for a place to congregateto become well known and crowded. Now a new hangout can be decided on and communicated across the city in hours.

    3. Nowhere else to go. Seriously. Can you think of another large, well lit, security patrolled location in Kansas City that is free to enter without an age limit?

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    I would say this is a multitude of different things all overlapping on top of each other. I remember reading this on Slashdot a couple times and it’s a eerie reminder that something is fucked up with society in the US, even if there are mothers petitioning to ban books and remove ‘dangerous’ equipment from playgrounds.

    I can even make a list of things I think are interacting poorly with each other.

    -Removing physical ‘thrill devices’ from kids childhood (nice swings, high playground equipment)
    -Oversterizing life and giving kids the notion that they are indestructible and always protected
    -Making kids go outside and ‘play’ without any terms or reasoning behind it merely because they saw that kids play too many games on TV and therefore they should just throw them out.
    -Lack of parenting in relation with the topic above.
    -No outlet for energy for kids. Sports are a option, but many kids are not interested in it. A lot of kids are interested in video games, but if they’re either too poor to have access to it or their parents take it away they’re going to find
    -Improper education without access to extracurricular activities.

    Remember when it was a popular, quite stupid, thing to race trains?

    Honestly, I can say with almost 100% certainty that if you give these kids a xbox and a couple games they wouldn’t do stuff like this. They need a outlet for their energy, productive or merely something that neutralizes it.

    OR you can go the stereotypical path and beat them till they stop what you don’t like, which is what this is being met with. You can’t brute force everything in life.

    • Voldenuit
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]Discontent with a world that is insufficiently redistributing wealth via government programs?[/quote<] That's certainly a big factor. The UK has one of the lowest mobility rates for the lower socioeconomic classes. The rich hoard all the wealth and the poor are disaffected and discontent. That usually does not play out well historically. All it takes is a single spark (like the shooting of an unarmed suspect) to set things off. Similar things have happened in similar circumstances in Western countries. The LA riots erupted after the policemen that beat up Rodney King were acquited. In Australia, the aborigines rioted after police chased an aboriginal youth to his death. Scott's third-last paragraph implied that a breakdown of civilisation was to blame; instead, I posit that civilisation itself had failed to look after the interests and welfare of its constituents.

      • Voldenuit
      • 8 years ago

      Allow me to elaborate on my last comment. I don’t condone the senseless riots and destruction of these riots, which is misdirected and usually results in damage to the lives and property of largely unrelated persons.

      However, the systematic marginalization of the poor and disaffected in many modern societies while the rich monopolize wealth is nothing less than a return to feudalism.

      In the UK, for example, high costs of living and an onerous VAT taxes poor people disproportionately, A 20% tax on essential goods is a far larger chunk of a lower income bracket earner’s earning power than it is for the middle and upper classes, ensuring the poor are kept financially powerless. In the US, Warren Buffet recently criticised that rich people were paying far less in taxes than they should be.

      There are countries that try to have sensible barriers in place against unreasonable accumulation of wealth. In India, which also has a very large divide between the poor and the rich, there are legal limits to how much CEOs can be paid, for example. Whether such measures are enough to address social justice and prevent unrest is something I can’t answer.

        • mesyn191
        • 8 years ago

        It should be noted too that the US has a social mobility level that is almost as low as the UK now and that wealth disparity is actually worse now I think.

        And that is without the social safety nets the UK has, which are actually being chipped away at by their government right now.

      • FatherXmas
      • 8 years ago

      The UK also has one of the most “comfortable” welfare systems on the planet. They’ve successfully created an underclass with little or no interest in bettering their conditions. They are quite happy to let the UK immigrant community do all the low paying jobs because why work and have your standard of living improve slightly when you can just stay home and watch TV all day.

        • mesyn191
        • 8 years ago

        Their social safety nets are being dismantled slowly and the whole “lazy stupid poors on welfare” meme is BS. Both over here and in the US. Productivity has risen while wages have stagnated or dropped.

        Put plainly: people are working harder for less than they made decades ago.

        The UK immigrant community is treated like crap over there just like Mexicans over here and the under class cannot benefit themselves at all anymore. If this situation doesn’t change in the next few years you’re likely to see massive riots all over again like we saw in the 80’s there. And by that I mean something like the Poll Tax Riots, not like the riots we just saw which weren’t nearly as bad as far as I can tell:

        [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q[/url<]

          • ludi
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<]Put plainly: people are working harder for less than they made decades ago.[/quote<] Uhm, no, not necessarily. Frequently these sorts of statistics are not taking into account the value of total compensation (which includes benefits). Since many types of employment in the US include healthcare benefits and and the cost of healthcare continues to rise (which is an entirely different thread of argument), take-home salary can stagnate or decrease while total compensation increases. As an example, if frozen popsicles are popular, and last week I paid you $50 and a $5 box of frozen popsicles for your labor, and the price of popsicles has tripled since then, your total compensation this week is higher at $45 and a $15 box of popsicles even though the wage is nominally lower. Unless you take initiative to start removing frozen treats from your benefits package and demand the difference in raw pay -- and most people don't, unless working as independent consultants -- then you can't complain about "stagnating wages". In total, you got $55 last week and $60 this week.

            • mesyn191
            • 8 years ago

            Benefits and 401K’s are being slashed left and right and many jobs no longer even offer them. I haven’t had either in my current job for over 6 yrs myself and no one else I know has these benefits or pensions anymore. I don’t even get fucking COLA’s, no one else I know has gotten one in years either, even working at the local hospital.

            Of course this is all common knowledge. So what was your point again?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            his point is simply wrong. I doubt arguing will change his mind. it’s common knowledge people are getting screwed. maybe he likes taking it from behind. Most people don’t.

            • ludi
            • 8 years ago

            It’s still a false premise.

            • mesyn191
            • 8 years ago

            So benefits and pensions are being cut and wages are stagnant or dropping while output has risen and yet “people are working harder for less” is a false premise? You’re just stating things now without even attempting to back it up with any sort of reasoning.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            In the 1960s most families only had one working parent.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            the work of raising children has been written of for generations. It has no value in today’s culture, people view it as a waste of time, so get back to work, and send them to daycare. nobody there cares about them, no wonder they feel disconnected.

            • Krogoth
            • 8 years ago

            Because raising kids is a full-time job that is very challenging and full of responsibilities.

            The problem is not everyone is cut out for it, yet in most cultures they are “expected” to produce offspring. (I blame biology as being the catayst). What makes it worse it is that current social-economic structure makes it harder for parents that do “care” to be “full-time”, because they barely make enough income just to put food on the table and have a roof over their heads.

            It is a nasty negative feedback effect at work.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            yes, i totally agree. the fact that we NEED to have both people working is a total fail on our economies part

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 8 years ago

        My that *is* some lovely propaganda.

        Too bad it has nothing to do with reality. But of course blaming those least able to defend themselves is a time honored trait of the immoral and extremely wealthy.

    • DrCR
    • 8 years ago

    I’d say the real issue is that people are not held accountable for their actions. Just my 2cents.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      That’s it from 30,000 feet. However, this is the internet. We have to actually solve the problem. And it requires more than handling accountability. it also requires proper education and leadership – not the government kind, the community kind. We all have to decide to abide by at the very least some sort of common decency and demand the same from others simultaneously.

    • Peldor
    • 8 years ago

    Don’t think of it as a revolt. Think of it as destructible environment research.

    • evilpaul
    • 8 years ago

    We’ve got the same thing going on in Philadelphia. “Flash mobs” (a term I thought was supposed to mean a bunch of people showing up in a public place, doing something wacky but legal, and dispersing) of teenagers are having beating/murder parties downtown for no particular reason.

    • xii
    • 8 years ago

    Apart for economical reasons and general confusion and insecurity about the future, I think multicultural tensions that have been always neatly hidden are now creeping up. This is an inflammatory topic and I’m not willing to point fingers left and right based on personal bias, but I think many European countries and especially the big cities in these countries are now finding a lot of polarisation with the “world belongs to everyone” crowd on one hand and the “my language and culture or get the hell back where you come from” crowd on the other hand. While I’m probably using the word “crowd” a bit gratuitous here, at least several opposing views seem to be clashing now that sustained welfare, job market and economical prospects are looking rather grim, fueled by some very real frustrations amongst communities, and political and religious unrest in large parts of the world.

    I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a clash of civilisations (and their respective cultures and/or religions), but something’s not quite right both inside Europe in local communities and in the whole world in general the last 10-20 years. My guess is that the world has gotten so small that wildly opposing views are crammed into a space too small and hence being forced to battle it out until some sort of natural balance (or total liquidation, if you’re gloomy) has been reached.

    A lot of people seem confused about who we are, where the hell we’re going and what really is The Right Thing to do…

    • LiquidSpace
    • 8 years ago

    Deleted

      • VILLAIN_xx
      • 8 years ago

      You’re creepy.

      • cegras
      • 8 years ago

      Fight the man! Big brother must go down!

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      You’re trying to imitate the mindset of the kids we’re talking about for the sake of discussion, right?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        Have you READ his other posts?

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          No… he does this on purpose then and then deletes his posts?

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      I was with you until sentence 3. Pity.

      Are you that white separatist guy that used to be on kuro5hin?

        • bthylafh
        • 8 years ago

        He doesn’t sound like Baldrson.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          Thanks, I couldn’t remember his name to save my life.

          Still, s/he certainly comes across as some more esoteric stormfronter.

      • trackerben
      • 8 years ago

      Haha, that is so… Sovietsky Leninist in style. Dos vedania, tovarisch-trollsome.

      • Kaleid
      • 8 years ago

      Didn’t know Breivik had computer access (ok, he wants a Christian Europe, but the mindset is similar).

      Secularism is enough. Some people need religion to be better, let them have it, but they shouldn’t force it onto others through government.
      Nationalism is a poison, we’ve seen it over and over again. blah blah blah..

    • albundy
    • 8 years ago

    Sublime was right! It only took one brick to make that window drop!

    • clone
    • 8 years ago

    “the best protection from a bullet is a job.”

    motto from disenfranchised ex gang members who are trying to get their lives straightened out.

    I head this from a priest who’d been spending his life trying to save kids from gangs, he was a genius able to provide 2 hours worth of information in 10 minutes.

    problems in society remain fairly consistent and typically follow the ebb and flow of employment/unemployment.

    once you have little to lose and everything to gain from rebellion ….. well it’s time to rebel, the media has been trying to push criminality while giving mild lipservice to the historically high levels of youth unemployment that we are seeing let alone the high unemployment and under employment amongst adults we are seeing amid this recession/jobless recovery.

      • Thrashdog
      • 8 years ago

      This, a million times over. Those babbling on about the decadence of modern society and the impending doom of all civilization would do well to look back at the recent history of our own culture. In spite of the dire predictions of crusty old people the world over, western civilization keeps trucking on despite everything the illegals, hippies, commies, blacks, fascists, socialists, bootleggers, abolitionists, slavers, royalists, republicans, Papists, Protestants, heathens, Moors, Ottomans, and Vikings have thrown at it. [i<](note to the easily offended: the preceding was sarcasm.)[/i<] The troubles we've been having all around the world all go back to one thing and one thing only: jobs. Europe has astronomical youth unemployment, and the situation over here isn't much better. You can see similar things in the flashpoint countries of the Arab Spring. Egypt in particular has a major unemployment issue, which is part of why so many young people were caught up in the revolution: what else did they have to do? Personally, I think that if the US economy starts going south again, we'll see the emergence of a major protest movement here as well. So many of my peers are unemployed or underemployed (myself included in the latter category), and it seems as though many of the folks in charge are so concerned about making sure rich people stay rich that they'd happily throw my entire generation under the bus to do it. After all, cynics with no money aren't the kind of constituency that makes big campaign contributions...

    • GasBandit
    • 8 years ago

    The Mayans were right!

    • yammerpickle2
    • 8 years ago

    I work in an industrial city with very high unemployment. As a salary person with an engineering degree and almost twenty years experience I have to work 80 plus hours a week to “keep” my job. Unfortunately a young person is going to have a very hard time breaking into a labor market that tight. Senior management will not hire anyone as any money spent on payroll will cause their large bonuses to be smaller. So I understand their frustration with the establishment that spends billions of taxpayers’ dollars to bail out greedy financial institutions and executives and will leave their generation with the debit and no decent job prospects.

    • Buub
    • 8 years ago

    The problem is pure and simple: the growth of the entitlement generation. See the riots in Greece.

    When you give people lots of stuff that they didn’t earn, along with telling them they’re not allowed to do lots of things without the government’s OK, you end up with a lot of people who get really pissed when you try to take things away, with no real experience in how to deal with it.

    Unemployed youth are just a symptom. Why are they unemployed? Could it be that the massive number of government regulations make hiring undesirable right now, especially for transient low-wage jobs? Even more, the minimum wage is responsible more than anything else for limiting the number of low-wage jobs available to those trying to enter the work force. It’s very simple economics: you raise the price of something (low-wage jobs), and all else being equal, people (businesses) will buy less of that thing (hire people for these jobs).

    Put another way, if you had someone whose inexperience and youth really only made them capable of doing $5/hour work, why would an employer want to hire that person for $7.50~$8.00/hour? In most cases, he won’t. But what if he had the freedom to do so? You might have a lot more high school and college kids doing work for a wage.

    And don’t tell me the minimum wage is the only thing that keeps businesses from paying people peanuts. If that were true, there wouldn’t be jobs out there right now that pay higher than minimum wage. Competition in the job market prevents this.

      • anotherengineer
      • 8 years ago

      What is the age group for this so called “entitlement generation” 40-65 yrs or whatever the typical CEO age has been from 1980 to now??

      “Many studies (for example, Lawrence Mishel’s study “The State of Working America 2005, 2006″) show that back in 1965 the ratio between CEO pay and average company pay was 24 to 1. By 1980 the ratio had increased to 40 to 1. The ratio tended to increase every year, and in 2000 it had increased to 300 to 1. Over the past 10 years the ratio has bounced around considerably but is currently close to that peak of 300 to 1.”
      from [url<]http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/how-to-fix-executive-pay/2009/06/why-high-ceo-pay-is-bad-business.html[/url<] and page 9 here [url<]http://www.cab.latech.edu/~mkroll/510_papers/fall_05/group6.pdf[/url<] Funny how a lot of these people in these positions, usually elected through a board of directors or from other/their "connections" deserve such a huge increase in 'recent' years, especially with the economy from the past decade and the flat/stagnant blue collar wage. I suppose they are competing with sports players on who can make the most millions per year. I guess the entitlement generation would be the "rich people" who deserve even more? And for an actual figure, my father working as a machinist apprentice back in 1977 was making $6/hr at a non-union company. (A new 3/4 ton HD pick-up at the time including tax was about 6500) If one does the math most common/needed items (shelter - house, fuel etc.) have gone up 6 fold since then, which would work out to $30/hr today for a machinist apprentice. When most non-union places here in Canada will pay about 12/hr for an apprentice. The CEO's are the ones making those decisions along with their massive pay increases, and I think that is part of the reason for the collapse today. Capitalism is a buy buy buy materialist based system, if costs keep going up and wages don't then people buy less and less, or put it on credit until ultimately business's can't survive due to low sales volumes and go under and then the workers after that with credit debt/no jobs. I'm not saying who deserves what and who doesn't, I am just trying to point out there are some serious flaws that have been going on over the past 30 yrs and now it blew up in everyone's face, and most of the ones to blame are living the high life on paradise island, and the youth know this and are no doubt WTF greedy crooks shafted us/screwed the country. Either way a sad state of affairs. Hopefully everyone learns from this and some type of laws or regulations or something comes from it that makes business practices more responsible, fair and sustainable.

    • Deanjo
    • 8 years ago

    “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

    • sweatshopking
    • 8 years ago

    I think writing this off to “bad parenting, and bad youth” is a mistake. we have a culture of decadence. we glorify selfishness, debased sex (not the good kind), violence, drugs, etc.. it’s not just “have more discipline”, which i think we could, it’s greater than that. nobody ever follows “do what i say, not what i do”. we have a total cultural failure.

      • cheesyking
      • 8 years ago

      and in the UK at least we also have a culture of actual, criminal fraud amongst politicians and a police force that takes bribes from news papers! Not forgetting the newspapers themselves which were doing lots of other naughty stuff besides the bribery!

      I’m not saying all the rioters we had here were trying to make a political point, I doubt many of them can spell ‘political’, but I did have a bit of a chuckle when a reporter asked a rioter why she was rioting, to which she said:
      “we’re getting our tax money back, Ye know, UK taxes init”

      when the people at the top have all got their snouts in the trough it’s not surprising when those at the bottom want some of the same action too, or that they go about it in a somewhat less sophisticated way.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      You know the culture that we develop all starts with the parenting of the future culture so it still boils down to poor parenting.

      That and kids know now days that they can get away with murder being a minor as all they are going to get is a slap on a wrist (if that) and it is taboo to not respect their “rights”.

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        That’s too late. you can’t try to teach children to not follow in your footsteps. most of them do. you need to lead by example. you’re right that good parenting will solve this, but it’s not a case of “be perfect while i snort these drugs off this hookers chest”, and that’s what we’re currently doing. you CANNOT educate virtuous children without leading by example. that change has to come from this generation.

        morality has become a dirty word, because it might offend somebody.
        Children need loving, educated parents, that lead moral lives in order to educate moral children. We are currently doing everything possible to undermine the “family unit”, all these broken homes have ramifications. saying people should use birth control doesn’t work either. there’s more too it than that. with a near 50% divorce rate, it’s not just people getting knocked up suddenly that are creating broken homes. our very foundations are falling apart.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          Go you, Mr. SSK. Lead by example.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I do try my best. I annoy some bronies on TR, but I hope i don’t actually offend anyone (even you enduser 🙂 I do enjoy our discussions, and hope you are as lighthearted as I am). I do try to educate my children on virtues and morality, and a big part of that is actually TEACHING children what virtues are, and how to develop them. ask your average 10 year old what compassion is, and you’ll get a shrug. [i<] That's [/i<] the problem with our society. virtues are as important to society as legs are to me or you. they're what we use to stand. without them, we can only go down. I think when you teach children and pre-youth virtues, it's amazing the difference. If you start using the virtues in your language, day to day in your parenting and dealing with other people, it really does change everything.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            wow, a sentiment like “lead by example” got us down voted. How depressing is that?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            see me first point 😛

          • 5150
          • 8 years ago

          How are we undermining the “family unit”?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            Kids need both their parents, and both parents need to teach respect. The best way to get your kids to do anything is by you doing it first. Live like you want your kids to live.

            • 5150
            • 8 years ago

            Ah. I agree. Marriage is hard as hell at times, a lot of people don’t have the stomach or patience for it. However, in those situations the kid might be better off with one single parent than two fighting ones.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            That doesn’t mean that the second parent gets a free pass.

            And with the divorce rate in the 50s, there are at least SOME people who should have seen it coming and never stayed together in the first place. I’m not saying all, or a majority, or even a statistically significant portion. Just “some”.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Marriage, as an institution, is essentially over. It’s a relic of a bygone era and there is absolutely no reason to be married if you’re male (in a heterosexual couple) as there’s zero benefit. Add to that the likelihood that if you have children regardless if you’re ever able to see them or not again you’ll be on the hook no matter what (and statistically you are far less likely to get custody under any circumstances).

            Most people that are parents are lame. Since there’s no tests or any other way to keep people from having children it’s inevitable that there are a lot of kids that should have gotten help and didn’t and carry that with them to adulthood.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            “absolutely no reason to be married if you’re male (in a heterosexual couple) as there’s zero benefit.” your point is an excellent example of what’s wrong with our culture. Selfishness. Zero benefit for who? marriage evolved to the benefit of [i<] everyone [/i<] . your failure to see this shows how much damage has been done. parents are lame? parents are people, just like you. Most of them try to do their best, but our world is morally ill.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            I should have clarified – I mean in the US there is no benefit. I have no idea what the divorce and custody laws are elsewhere or their enforcement.

            It isn’t selfishness – it’s self preservation. I fail to see how marriage benefits anyone in this day and age. You say it is but you provide no evidence. Clearly if it was working people would actually stay married instead of marriages lasting less than 5 years. The numbers drop off sharply thereafter.

            Frankly it is quite clear you’ve never been divorced and are still in the honeymoon phase. You’re still romanticizing it.

            Yes, many parents are lame. I’m a parent so I think I can say that with a great deal of authority – not to mention many years working in schools.

            You also missed the most salient point: “Add to that the likelihood that if you have children regardless if you’re ever able to see them or not again you’ll be on the hook no matter what (and statistically you are far less likely to get custody under any circumstances). ”

            One’s ability to parent, particularly after divorce, is hopelessly compromised. The judge, family court services, all get a chance at you – and they typically are not interested in allowing men to parent – and instead wish you to be a silent wallet to your children. If you paid any attention to US divorce law you’d know this. I have seen cases where the mother was a hopeless drug addict and still would not give custody to the father. The only group that has it worse in divorce court than men are gay and trans parents.

            For the -1 Clearly someone has a bone to pick but hasn’t got anything to say. Many of whom clearly have never had to fight for to see their children in a divorce.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I guess that depends what you consider a benefit. Because our society has undermined the importance and function of marriage doesn’t mean i has no benefit.

            Marriage was created to protect families. It allows for the best environment to raise children. It allows for the most protection for a mother. it allows for a father the best opportunities to raise his children. None of those are benefits in your eyes?

            You’re right that i’ve never been divorced, and imma guess you have. I’m sorry to hear that. it’s a horrible thing to go through, and i can certainly understand your frustration.

            In my case, i’ve been married for 8 years. In a relationship with my wife for 12. I am happily married, and while I do expect that to continue, there have been hard times, and I assume there will be in the future. I am not a fortune teller though, but I do expect to stay married.

            You’re right that divorce rates are high. I view that as a symptom of our overall moral decadence. I’m not saying in all cases, obviously, but we all know people who get married who shouldn’t for a variety of reasons. Also, the divorce rates are close to 50%, but that INCLUDES repeat divorcees, which adds a fair bit to the increase.

            Certainly our interpretation of fatherhood is skewed. I agree that the system is poor. it has issues the other way too. My sister is in the process of divorcing a man who became violent after a few years of marriage. She probably shouldn’t have married him, but it was one of those bad situations, however, despite being violent with her, and the baby, he gets regular custody. she is unable to leave the province to go to the university she wants because he has a good job, and refuses to move, and in doing so, prevents her from getting her education. he pays as little as possible, refusing to pay while they were separated for a year, now paying 300$ a month when has has an income of 50k. She got him his job, got him setup, once that was done, he went nuts. now he has as much “right” to their son as she does, though he doesn’t get up in the middle of the night, she works 2 jobs, and barely pays the bills. He has a new fancy car, new GF though they’re technically still married, and brand new house. it’s not fair, either.

            But that doesn’t mean that marriage has no role. It means the role has been co-opted. marriage is an institution to protect the family. it’s become a joke,but it shouldn’t remain that way. I’m a firm believer in celibacy until marriage. I think it makes the most sense for health, society, and family. I was successful, so can other people be. you might write that off as insane, that’s your prerogative. I also don’t drink alcohol, and discourage it’s use. they cause more net damage then they’re worth.

            I my opinion, marriage is as important, nay, more important than ever before. because our society is unable to recognize that, and fails to treat it with the respect it deserves doesn’t it mean it’s a poor institution, it means we’ve lost sight of what’s actually important.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Again, what is that role? Again, what purpose does it serve? Again, where is the benefit? To whom?

            In what way does it “protect the family”? What makes it, as an institution, relevant *today*?

            You are not answering these fundamental questions and until you do anyone agreeing with you is doing so on faith and not on facts.

            You posted – ” It allows for the best environment to raise children. ” – Why? What’s the evidence? Two parents, or multiple parents do not need to be married to provide an excellent environment. There are no statistics supporting that the children of married parents do better than that of unmarried parents in the same socioeconomic group.

            “It allows for the most protection for a mother.” This is patently untrue in the US. A mother actually has more rights divorced than married.

            “it allows for a father the best opportunities to raise his children.” – Where is your evidence of this? How does it allow for this? In a great many cases unmarried fathers end up with greater likelihood of getting custody and visitation than their married counterparts.

            Part of this is due to the age old claiming domestic violence as a standard divorce tactic (which is not to lessen the situation with your sister – but clearly what you know about divorce in the US is even less than what you know about divorce laws in Canada and that is precious little from what you’ve posted).

            “None of those are benefits in your eyes? ” None of these so-called benefits even exist. If they do you certainly haven’t provided any benefit of such.

            You’re asking me to toss aside all analytical reasoning and climb aboard your marital faith crazy train. And you haven’t even gotten into glbt parenting at all.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            here’s a wikipedia article, with citations, for you:
            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implications_of_divorce[/url<] "Children of divorced parents (those entirely from unhappy families) are reported to have a higher chance of behavioral problems than those of non-divorced parents (a mix of happy and unhappy families). Studies have also reported the former to be more likely to suffer abuse than children in intact families, and to have a greater chance of living in poverty." for the common law peeps: [url<]http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1990/31/9031306[/url<] "A new study by Dr. Frank Jones, Research Fellow at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC) has found that marriage benefits children in ways that parents living together in a common-law relationship does not, and that children from common-law homes are more likely to engage in risky behavior. The study found that teens who as children had parents living common-law were more likely than teens of married parents to smoke, to be involved in drug dealing, to have a lower age of sexual initiation and engage in sexual intercourse, to have poor relationships with their parents, and to have parents who have a poor relationship with each other." so, from those reports, it helps to protect children from poverty, reduces economic strain on the justice system, decreases drug use, increases the age of losing your virginity, decrease behavioral problems.... i'm not sure how much more evidence i need to provide! the list for divorce leads to higher rates of stroke, cancer, in men, it's [b<] generally lower life expectancy [/b<] "Recent longtitudinal studies have reported that most divorced people are no happier after divorce. University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite analyzed the relationships between marriage, divorce and happiness using the National Survey of Family and Households. She reported that unhappily married adults who had divorced were no happier than those who had stayed married.[3] Some studies report that cohabitation before marriage is correlated with an increased divorce rate." AND YOU'RE MORE UNHAPPY. You live together BEFORE getting married? you're more likely to break up, AND DIE YOUNGER. It's not a lack of facts. You're going on faith that it's valueless without looking into it. It isn't. I like you DAM, but marriage has MANY benefits. many of your points don't even need responses. do you suppose that custody battles allows children the best care? just because you "win" doesn't mean the child's upbringing is ideal. it might be better than it was, but that doesn't make it the best it can be. you can write me off as "knowing nothing about divorce laws", or you can objectively look at the institution without your anecdotal evidence, which granted, is hard to do. i assume you're not advocating promiscuity? that one is pretty easy to debunk. on the lgbt front, there are a number of issues that make it hard to accurately debate. for example: Michael Bettinger in a 2006 study reported: “An important difference between gay men and heterosexuals is that the majority of gay men in committed relationships are not monogamous”. Dr. Esther Rothblum concurred, saying that over 40% of gay relationships are not monogamous. If gay marriage means accepting sexual non-monogamy within marriage, we must accept an inherent change in the intrinsic meaning of marriage and ultimately the meaning of responsible parenting. Though gay and lesbian couples in some studies appear to have higher quality, more satisfying relationships, they also appear less likely to remain stable when children are involved. Recent studies by Patterson and by Nanette Gartrell in the United States, as well as Scandinavian research, confirm this outcome, even when the GLBT subjects sampled had much higher levels of education than the heterosexual subjects. Seperation rates in the 60% range, higher than for heterosexual couples. I have seen studies that stated children of lgbt couples are fine, and i'm sure they are, but such things need to be taken into account. I have no issues with lgbt people. Discrimination is wrong on any issue, I'm not planning on being gay, but the issues are complicated, and do need review.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            [url<]http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/04/09/the-institute-of-marriage-and-family-canada/[/url<] "Frank Jones is a retired StatsCan number cruncher who is also listed at another religious right think tank, the Christian Commitment Research Institute." [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Canada[/url<] That covers the IMFC and their credibility. And we were talking about unmarrieds. You're still not providing facts ssk, not only that you're stating that an objective intelligent person could only come to the same conclusions you have - which is patently false. Just because you don't want to address my points doesn't mean that you're being objective. I have seen no reason to believe that marriage will be anything other than a quaint anachronism in the next 50 years. Since you've updated I have to say that since you're bringing up monogamy there are a great many studies as well as anecdotal evidence that monogamy does not work. Ergo why Dan Savage coined the term monogamish.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I don’t think we were just talking about unmarrieds, but whatever.

            as for the “it covers the imfc and their credibility”, can you explain how? i don’t see any information saying they’ve faked studies, or any controversy. you’re saying because they support families, and [i<] link [/i<] to a study that supports families, they're worthless?? LOL. I'm not a christian, nor am I full of inherent bias towards any group. if they've got science to back them up, i'll take a gander. You still ignored half of the information i provide, and then say "you're not providing facts". [url<]http://longevity.about.com/od/wholiveslongest/a/marriage_le.htm[/url<] or how about: [url<]http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/brwaitgalligher.html[/url<] i suppose they don't count for any reason. how about this? i've given you a number of studies that say men live longer, happier, when married. children are better, etc. You show me some that say "men live longer, do better single/divorced" or how about "children do better with parents not married". I'll check back, don't worry. as for "monogamy not working", enjoy the hiv. rates are EXPLODING on all continents, so it's just a few more years, and monogamy will be your only chance to survive. it's already like that on one continent. Monogamy is our only option. Please understand that I am not insulting people who have HIV. I have many friends and a daughter who has HIV from birth, but it's not something to be taken lightly, and the reality is that there is only one way to prevent infection. as for not address your points, i think they were/are addressed.

            • 5150
            • 8 years ago

            “as for “monogamy not working”, enjoy the hiv.”

            I lol’d.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            The joke is on you. Statistics and studies, when done by political groups always serve the ends of that political group. They aren’t “family oriented” they’re intolerant right wing agendists.

            I don’t know why I’m wasting my time but it’s like saying those at the University of Chicago decided to do a “study” that “proves” supply side economics (trickle down) actually works.

            Only you would be so utterly married to your theory that you cannot see the truth. Not once have you even attempted to answer my questions.

            HIV and monogamy have a lot less to do with each other than not having access to birth control (which the same rightists you’re quoting are trying to keep away from the third world). But thanks for the straw man.

            As for my very last post on this subject since you won’t address anything I leave you with these articles showing that marriage is generally on its way out:

            [url<]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-18/fewer-getting-married-as-people-say-it-s-obsolete.html[/url<] Unnecessarily political but nonetheless in agreement - [url<]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250207/Marriage-rates-drop-lowest-level-1862.html[/url<] [url<]http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/02/divorce_and_marriage[/url<] Clearly there are reasons for it.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            oh man. you’re nuts. the joke is on me? YOU FAILED. I ASKED YOU TO SUPPLY A COUNTER STUDY, YOU FAILED. YOU KNOW WHY? CAUSE FACTS ARE FACTS. study after study, you continue to look for ways to justify an unsustainable lifestyle. they’re intolerant right wing agendists? maybe. you’re an intolerant idk what, leftist? i don’t like using such labels, as people are really all over the place, but it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

            “HIV and monogamy have a lot less to do with each other than not having access to birth control ” I guess you know, with your extensive hiv experience, hey. You’ve got no friggin idea what you’re talking about.

            “I don’t know why I’m wasting my time but it’s like saying those at the University of Chicago decided to do a “study” that “proves” supply side economics (trickle down) actually works.”

            I don’t think you understand that much about neoclassicalism. the parts of “neoclassical” economics that encourages “trickledown” and the “freedom and liberty” isn’t neoclassicalism at all. That comes from the Austrian school. You’re right that they’ve teamed up, but it’s only because neoclassicalism if taken seriously can encourage government action. it’s the political side of the the right that likes to mix them. this is off the discussion, anyway, but i don’t trust the chicago school anymore than you do, but it’s not because of the “classical” side, it’s because of the politics.

            i’ve answered all your questions. Not only me would be married. there are a ton of people out there like me, that advocate people taking responsibility for their relationships, parenting, drug use, sexual promiscuity, educations, etc. scary, i know.

            edit: you updated with some info. here’s my reply:

            Well, i never argued that it wasn’t being done less. I argued that it still had a purpose and that our society wasn’t able to recognize the role. it’s common knowledge people are getting married less, just as our society seems to be getting crazier and crazier… funny that. that’s like saying “i don’t think the decrease in age for children losing their virginity is a good thing” and you saying “it is, look it’s getting younger!” it’s not relevant. I know people are unable to recognize the value.

            remember when i said this, like 5 ago?: “But that doesn’t mean that marriage has no role. It means the role has been co-opted. marriage is an institution to protect the family. it’s become a joke,but it shouldn’t remain that way. ”

            i’m fine with this being your last post. I don’t think you have too much to say. i’m not trying to be rude, and i hope you’re not upset. i know we can still be soulmates. ♥♥

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Um no – remember all these posts you deliberately ignored?

            “In what way does it “protect the family”? What makes it, as an institution, relevant *today*?

            You are not answering these fundamental questions and until you do anyone agreeing with you is doing so on faith and not on facts.

            You posted – ” It allows for the best environment to raise children. ” – Why? What’s the evidence? Two parents, or multiple parents do not need to be married to provide an excellent environment. There are no statistics supporting that the children of married parents do better than that of unmarried parents in the same socioeconomic group.

            “It allows for the most protection for a mother.” This is patently untrue in the US. A mother actually has more rights divorced than married.

            “it allows for a father the best opportunities to raise his children.” – Where is your evidence of this? How does it allow for this? In a great many cases unmarried fathers end up with greater likelihood of getting custody and visitation than their married counterparts. ”

            This was only 3 posts ago.

            As far as Focus on the Family they’re a well known right wing group. Particularly active in disenfranchising gays wherever possible. So yeah I’m going to trust them – not.

            You wanted me to provide studies, as to why I don’t know, when you didn’t even answer the above. If marriage is to have a future – an actual reason to be – then the laws have to get on board with that. Romantic marriage as a concept has only existed for about 150 years. It’s still a relatively new concept and one that’s not based on practicalities.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            i think i gave pretty evidence, multiple times best for all parties involved. you write it off, that’s your prerogative.

            I don’t understand how you consider “getting custody and visitation” the best environment. THE BEST ENVIRONMENT IS FOR THE PARENTS TO BE LOVING, LIVING TOGETHER WITH THE CHILDREN. BEST FOR THE KIDS, WIFE, AND FATHER. if you believe otherwise, contrary to common sense, and basic human relationships that’s up to you. they’ll likely enjoy the double presents, i doubt they’ll think it’s a worthwhile trade off though.

            for the protection bit, it provides economic protection, reduced STI infection, etc. it should be pretty obvious.

            for the excellent environmental situation:
            [url<]http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Popenoe/Popenoe-Married.html[/url<] probably don't read it. more facts. you want leftist studies? [url<]http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf[/url<] they're a leftwing group. there you go baby

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            “I don’t understand how you consider “getting custody and visitation” the best environment. THE BEST ENVIRONMENT IS FOR THE PARENTS TO BE LOVING, LIVING TOGETHER WITH THE CHILDREN. BEST FOR THE KIDS, WIFE, AND FATHER.”

            Let’s see – maybe because most marriages end in divorce? Hello? Your comparing a pipe dream with a reality. Marriages no longer last. Are you actually going to dispute that?

            Studies only state that living with both parents is better in a low conflict household. All of them, including the ones you’ve provided say that. That’s increasingly a rarity. More so in poorer families. When parents begin screaming at each other, throwing things or using their kids as ways to hurt their partner – which happens quite a bit even before divorce – then it isn’t a low conflict household.

            “for the protection bit, it provides economic protection, reduced STI infection, etc. it should be pretty obvious. ”

            Really? Wow. It does afford women economic protection, that much is true. Otherwise, no. Maybe it should be *to you* but I asked for specifics. It’s not.

            Poverty itself is the primary problem in parenting – which is something that everyone agrees on.

            Again, if the laws were different I’d agree that marriage has an upside. I’m reasonably certain not every country is as bad as the US and UK are. I hear Iceland is pretty progressive but I can’t say I’ve done the research.

            [url<]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland[/url<] Makes some interesting reading and seems to undermine your view that only marrieds can provide adequate/optimal parenting situations.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            most marriages don’t end in divorce.
            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#United_States[/url<] since you're so stuck on the US, there's the us numbers. 40% and it's been [i<] declining [/i<]. you're right that marriage has been declining too. we can both agree that poverty is a major problem in parenting, but given the statistics show the best way to break the poverty cycle is by having children to married couples, don't you think it's a thing worth having? that's interesting about iceland, but it's not all rosy. "Prevalence of chlamydia varies enormously across the world. In the 1990s, rates amongst pregnant women in Europe ranged from 2.7% in Italy to 8.0% in Iceland, while studies in South America found rates of 1.9% amongst teenagers in Chile and 2.1% amongst pregnant women in Brazil." from [url<]http://www.avert.org/std-statistics.htm[/url<] that's pretty damn high for a developed country. you'll likely say "but wait, they have the longest life spans!", and you're right. they do. i'm not going to argue that amongst some cultures, marriage isn't that common. Hell, there are some cultures where marriage [i<] doesn't even exist! [/i<], and yet, they survive. i'm not saying everything else is crap. i'm saying that marriage certainly still has a role, and is [i<] typically [/i<] ideal. My view is not that "Only marrieds can provide adequate/optimal parenting", my view is that [i<] statistically [/i<] married couples do a better job, and that because of the ability for marriage to help with things like poverty reduction, it's still [i<] relevant [/i<]. I also believe that there is a fundamental benefit to giving somebody your word. maybe people don't respect that, but people aren't honest in much else these days either. does that mean all contracts should be done away with? I don't think so. i think todays divorce rates are a shame, and people, like in many other aspects of life, are not patient, loving, compassionate, selfless, like they need to be to have a healty functioning society. like a seat belt, marriage is a protection that must be respected and used correctly in order to do it's job. if i wrap my seatbelt around my neck, and crash, can i expect good results? what about if i don't use it at all? sometimes seat belts can kill people, people survive because they weren't wearing them. That doesn't mean seatbelts have no role, and i bet next time you jump in the car, you'll be wearing yours.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            for the record, i havent minused you.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            BTW, the divorce rates are misleading.

            It’s 50% of new marriages, which mean people getting remarried 5 times really spike the rate up.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            The percentage of people who’ve married 5+ times is vanishingly small.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 8 years ago

            I am acquainted with a guy who is probably on #4, and has kids with at least three women. He makes lots of money and I guess that’s his main draw. Very complex at christmas time.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            The fact that you are only acquainted with one proves my point unless this guy is your only friend (which I certainly hope not. It would be kinda scary otherwise).

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            man, that boy has some stress….

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 8 years ago

            Its nuts, he divorces one and both parents are together with someone else right away, buying new houses and everything. This children are all spoiled and materialistic, I’ve been told.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            that’s a bummer. I don’t know what i’d do if i was in that situation.

            • trackerben
            • 8 years ago

            Rightly so. We each see what we want to model in a person, and then we each model for what we want to see in a person.

          • Deanjo
          • 8 years ago

          Again all those moral values get their roots from ones home life. You take a look at good kids and you take a look at the trouble makers home lives. There is a direct relationship. It isn’t the society that instills those morals, it is the job of a good parent to make sure that those high moral fibres are embedded into their childs life. At one time when a kid caught hell at school from the teacher the detention was the least of his worries, because they knew that it was nothing compared to what they were going to get at home. Now days a teacher even verbally scolds a kid it is no longer the parent saying to the kid “What the hell did you do?” but “How dare you talk to my kid like that, you will be hearing from my lawyer.” When the parents act like that you cannot expect anything else but to have their children follow in their parents footsteps with the same demeanor.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            No. Everyone is a product of their surroundings. Everyone. Not everyone gets great – or any – home training. It doesn’t help the species to find someone to blame when we can all do our part to make it better.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            “It doesn’t help the species to find someone to blame when we can all do our part to make it better.”

            i agree we need to all accept our responsibility in this situation! The time to fix it is now.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            sure they do, and i’m not disagreeing with you. but i AM saying the changed needs to come first and foremost [i<] now [/i<] . we can't just tell our kids what to do, and expect them to do it. "The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be." - Plato

      • trackerben
      • 8 years ago

      I would say it’s all of the above. Parents and families should be the first line of defense of viable norms, teachers of moral conscience which govern behavior. They are also the last refuge of the constructive beliefs and ways of life which engender lasting virtues. Despite the constant baseness exposed in our violence-prone evolutionary heritage, and the constant dangers established by our error-prone inventions of government.

      Humans individually tend to fail to varying degrees. Cultures tend to fail totally when they reach dead-ends in their evolution of civilizational commons. With this species its usually all or nothing at that level of competition.

      • Kaleid
      • 8 years ago

      Charlie Brooker:
      [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP6L5S14ygY[/url<]

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      While you have some salient points this post comes across as naive.

      You need to define decadence and debased sex in order to make those points clear. Whose decadence? What debased sex? Anything other than vanilla? Missionary position?

      The critical part of selfishness that you’re not emphasizing is that of greed. Of self before one’s community. Of othering those less advantaged than us. That instead of taxing and decrying the top 5 percent we idolize them and want to be like them.

      If you mean that politically no one follows their own rhetoric – that’s fine. I think it should be mandatory that you live by what you espouse. If that were the case evangelicals would cease to exist within a week due to all the stonings.

      I see that these uprisings are good. I’m glad it’s happening. If it means changing the status quo I’m all for it.

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        obviously the status quo needs to change.

        as for my standards of moral sex, I would say that sex belongs in a marriage, and should be respected. This current dorm porn world we live in doesn’t bode well for our children or our grandchildren. Entire generations who have no self respect or self esteem, willing to do the must debased things imaginable for a high five from their peers.

        do I care what position two married people are enjoying? Nope, as long as neither party feels debased, than giver.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          Pre-marital sex is the longest going sex of all time. You’d really need to nail it down to a specific harm to credibly make an argument.

          Not only that but you claim drugs and violence as if they were greater issues now than in the past which they are not.

          The primary issue of selfishness is still that of greed.

      • blastdoor
      • 8 years ago

      At least in the united states, we also have a system/society/whatever that is heavily stacked against parents. In the 19th century there was a strong economic incentive to have kids. They served as a cheap labor force for the farm and your only hope of care in old age. Today, from an economic point omf view, children are nothing but an unending burden on parents. The only reason to have kids is if you really, really, really like kids. But I think a lot of people end up having kids “accidentally” or because they are brainwashed into thinking that is just what they are supposed to do. So most people end up with a lifelong burden that they secretly (or not so secretly) resent.

      Solutions? If we think that children are in the best interests of society, then we need to provide much better supports to parents in raising kids. We also need to make it easier for people who don’t really want kids (or who would not want them if they really understood what’s involved) to not have kids.

      Unfortunately one of our two major political parties — ironically the one that makes a big deal about “family values” — is diametrically opposed to either of these things.

      So buckle up folks — it’s only going to get worse

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t think abortion is a solution. You’re right though about children not being economically beneficial, and not everyone needs to have them. If youre not doing it for love, you’re doing it wrong. Im not sure if you meant abortion as a solution, maybe you just meant other solutions. Idk.

        you’re right about everything else though.

          • 5150
          • 8 years ago

          “If youre not doing it for love, you’re doing it wrong.” Are you talking about sex?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            no. but it applies to that as well. i was referring to having children.

          • blastdoor
          • 8 years ago

          I mostly meant contraception.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            contraception is the bomb. I ♥ it. sex SHOULD be fun. it’s a fundamental part of a relationship.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Kids should be on norplant or depo at the onset of puberty anyway.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            wow….. me and you have some different views…

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Of course – because theory and faith hit the ground hard when faced with practicality. They don’t co-exist well.

            Ending unwanted children means making sure you can’t have them until you deliberately want to. No one loves contraception and it can all fail. If it were treated like a preventable disease we could ensure the end of teen pregnancy.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            no, because you view the solution to the worlds problem as shooting for the lowest common. by your logic, EVERY car should have Breathalyzers installed, to end drunk driving, removing individual responsibility.

            It’s not a matter of “practicality vs theory and faith”. it’s a matter of expensive, decadent solutions that will encourage bad behavior vs actual solutions. Who’s going to pay for all these drugs? who’s going to implement them? with the free love that will inevitably come from such a plan, what do you do about STD’s, or the psychological issues that arrive from such behavior?

            Hmmm. thought as much. This isnt a solution. it would just make it worse.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            “Encourage bad behavior” – really? How?

            Clearly sex education would still need to exist and condom use as well. It’s the _relying_ on it that makes it problematic vis a vis teen pregnancy.

            Psychological damage? Really? Yeah because humans never had sex pre-HIV? wtf?

            Indeed again, no answer. But as long as “actual solutions” consist of whatever you believe they are and only what you believe they are we’re both wasting each others time.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            no answer? OF COURSE I’VE GOT AN ANSWER! you should know that by know!

            Are you a father? yes or no? if yes, do you have a daughter? yes or no? do you want your thirteen year old daughter out having sex with random men? do you think if she can’t get pregnant that people are going to use condoms? “come on baby, you can’t get knocked up, and i’m clean, don’t worry. it feels SO much better…” yea. cause that will solve the the std issues. that’s dead one. you lost it. don’t bother replying.

            HERE YOU GO BABY!! ANOTHER ARTICLE WITH THE FACTS:
            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States#Psychological_effects[/url<] probably don't read it though. it doesn't fit your world view. YOUNG SEX IS DAMAGING. it's not that hard to figure out. you never responded to how you're going to PAY FOR, OR ADMINISTER YOUR IDEA OR HOW YOU'LL COMPENSATE FOR THE REDUCTION IN HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY, WHICH I THINK MOST OF US AGREE, THESE DAMN KIDS TODAY ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH 🙂 (i'm 26, so i'm old enough to say that )

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            My kids are as old as you are.

            You can’t stop kids from doing what they want to do. You try to influence them but by that age they’re already rebelling. Something you’ve clearly not gone through yet. Of course they’ll still use condoms – no one wants to die.

            Yeah it’s so damaging that it’s been happening for millions of years. You’re really stretching things here. There is nothing you can do to stop them and preaching abstinence didn’t work in the 1400s and it still doesn’t work today. Ensuring the end of teen pregnancy != saying it’s ok to screw whenever you want to. It’s treating teen pregnancy as a public health issue – which it is.

            The only consistent factor that decreases teen sex, pregnancy, and other acting out is parents that are active in their kids lives and are there consistently (something that is largely undermined by those very same divorce courts we were talking about elsewhere). They need a connection and they need someone to talk sense to them. This is undermined by a system that often requires parents to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet as well as many other factors. You don’t just write those people that have terrible to non-existent home lifes and then relegate them to raising even more miserable children largely because you think that abortion is wrong and that they’re evil for not being abstinent. Particularly since different ethnic and socio economic groups see things differently.

            There is no reduction in responsibility. It makes it merely significantly more difficult to need to have abortions or raise children before one is ready.

            Lovely bunch of straw man arguments though.

            I particularly enjoyed this note in that wikipedia article you cited:

            a 2009 study of college-age young adults by Marla Eisenberg and colleagues did not find any significant differences in terms of harmful psychological outcomes between those who engaged in casual sex and those who were in more committed relationships.[70]

            Further, many populations in europe and elsewhere have sex at incredibly young ages without issue particularly in scandanavia.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I lol’d at your “not rebelling yet” comment. when i was younger I had my disagreements with my parents, but drinking and sleeping around weren’t part of it. Never drank, done drugs, or had sex outside of marriage. call me crazy, but doing so has made my life a joy to live.

            “Of course they’ll still use condoms – no one wants to die.” which is why they’re using them now… so there’s no sti’s anymore….

            “You can’t stop kids from doing what they want to do.” Of course not. but you can damn sure do your best to set them on a path. obviously, some kids will just be troublesome. they’re responsible for themselves, like an human. Our culture, and pressure to remove standards, because it’s inconvenient for some groups is a large part of the problem.

            “Yeah it’s so damaging that it’s been happening for millions of years. You’re really stretching things here.” right. i guess the science is stretching it too. you’re not interested in reality, you’re interested in a quick fix.

            “The only consistent factor that decreases teen sex, pregnancy, and other acting out is parents that are active in their kids lives and are there consistently ” definitely, we can agree on that. the best way to be involved and be there? to be a loving married couple.

            saying “i trust you to do what is best (not having sex at a young age, and imo before being married, regardless of the age), but i’m going to put you on birth control anyway” doesn’t work. it’s like saying “you shouldn’t drink, but if you do, don’t drive, ok, honey?” that parent has failed. sure, they may not drink and drive, but if you were trying to stop them from drinking, you missed your chance.

            “This is undermined by a system that often requires parents to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet as well as many other factors. You don’t just write those people that have terrible to non-existent home lifes and then relegate them to raising even more miserable children largely because you think that abortion is wrong and that they’re evil for not being abstinent. ”

            agreement here, bro. nobodies advocating condemning anyone, and while i’m not in favor of abortion, i do realize there are [i<] some [/i<] situations where it might be the best option. we need to be on guard to prevent another russia [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#Statistics[/url<] more abortions than births is an alarming situation. we need a clear and strong message saying "this is what's expected" and then being supportive of people who don't make it. everyone has their own journey, and that needs to be respected, and i'm an avid birth control user myself. I don't think, however, that simply hooking kids up to birth control is going to fix the issue. it might prevent pregnancies, but it's not going to deal with the plethora of psychological issues, which i linked, from damaging the structure of society. you keep saying strawman, and there haven't been any.

        • 5150
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t necessarily “like” kids, but it’s amazing how much I love my son.

          • sweatshopking
          • 8 years ago

          they’re mind blowingly awesome.

          • trackerben
          • 8 years ago

          The truth in what you wrote compels me to say the same. I’m astounded at how grateful my kid says he is for the examples and teachings we’ve given him – knowing just how clueless, dishonest, corrupt, inconsistent, and unfaithful I can be!

    • ludi
    • 8 years ago

    Severe global economic contraction and associated high unemployment rate among youths means lots of young people with nothing better to do, either in terms of work or play. Combine that with an unusually hot summer and suddenly people are outdoors, looking for trouble. If the Eurozone crashes and/or the economy doesn’t begin to recover soon, it will be the 1970s all over again.

      • Captain Ned
      • 8 years ago

      More like 1968, and the lot that rioted in Chicago & Paris are now running the show.

      @SnowboardingTobi:

      #5 certainly works but the real killer, the real source of all of this, is #4, Don’t dis me man, don’t dis me. Our culture of financial entitlement has bred a culture of respect entitlement amongst a population that will never have the chance to actually earn respect, because they’ve never been raised in/exposed to a milieu where hard work is its own reward and the currency by which respect is earned.

      As a nation we’ll spend decades and trillions on fixing the effects of LBJ’s Great Society when the true fix is far more simple for the at-risk population. Marry the girl you knock up, stay together for life, and work to make your kid(s) life better than yours. That would require looking out for interests other than your own, so I know it’ll never happen.

      [/grumpy old man]

    • just brew it!
    • 8 years ago

    “Discontent with a world that is insufficiently redistributing wealth via government programs?”

    Uneven distribution of wealth may be part of it, but I don’t think the cause is (lack of) redistribution by government programs. The problem is a system which encourages (and has accelerated) that uneven distribution in the first place. The tail is wagging the dog, and those who work hard are not the ones who are reaping the lion’s share of the rewards.

    “A lost generation of young people?”

    I don’t know if “lost” is the proper word. Some are spoiled brats, to be sure. But I also think there’s a sizable percentage who are becoming pissed off — and rightfully so! — as they come to the realization that the previous generation has screwed the world up pretty badly, and they’re about to be left holding the bag.

      • humannn
      • 8 years ago

      The lion’s share of the profits should go to those who take the lion’s share of the risk, namely the owners of companies. The workers are working hard, I’m sure, but they are probably paid well enough. If they weren’t being paid well enough, the company would be having a problem keeping workers there because they’d all be leaving; they’d have to raise wages to attract people in the door. (With the current recession, the power is tipped in favor of the company admittedly, with workers afraid to leave, but this is a special circumstance in the short term and not the norm over the long term). But that doesn’t happen because over time a nice balance is reached between paying too much and not enough. It’s freedom deciding who gets paid what, and it works. That is, until you start throwing in govt controls and taking away rights here, while extending rights there.

        • bthylafh
        • 8 years ago

        Well, no. As the financial crisis showed, it’s the taxpayers who are taking most of the risk. Too big to fail, neh?

        • Thrashdog
        • 8 years ago

        I’d agree with this in principle, but it doesn’t reflect the truth of the situation. Executive pay has been skyrocketing for years, while income for regular working stiffs has stagnated since the Seventies or so. You don’t even have to look hard to find reports of CEOs other top execs running companies into the ground as the current crisis was brewing, and then being rewarded with multimillion-dollar golden parachutes while the rank and file below them got pink slips and government unemployment. All this was happening while the regulatory agencies that were supposed to have been keeping trouble in check were — and apparently still are — apparently asleep at the wheel. According to a story I heard on NPR, during the Savings and Loan crisis of the 80s, the SEC made 10,000 recommendations for criminal prosecution while there have been 0 such recommendations in the current mortgage crisis. In effect, the people taking all the risks are running off with the rewards and shuffling the negative consequences off to their employees. It’s wildly unfair, and I can only hope that we as a society have the strength of will to step up and put a stop to it.

        • Voldenuit
        • 8 years ago

        Riight. Because underpaid workers in countries that don’t respect workers’ rights (China, Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia) have sooo many options available to themand just waay too much say in how things work.

        Often, it’s a choice between accepting slave wages or rapidly starving to death.

        • just brew it!
        • 8 years ago

        Please explain to me how the bankers, hedge fund managers, etc. are taking “the lion’s share of the risk”. They’re risking [b<]other people's money[/b<]! And when they [b<]do[/b<] screw up, the government -- we the taxpayers! -- invariably bails them out (unless they happen to be unlucky enough to be Lehman Brothers).

      • Thrashdog
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]I also think there's a sizable percentage who are becoming pissed off -- and rightfully so! -- as they come to the realization that the previous generation has screwed the world up pretty badly, and they're about to be left holding the bag.[/quote<] Hey, that's me!

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      I agree with both, especially the second statement.

      I think kids are getting too smart for the whole ‘get out of highschool, get a girl preggers, work a mediocre dead end job for the next 40 years’ that a lot of people on here seem to be enamored with pushing on them.

      • anotherengineer
      • 8 years ago

      “But I also think there’s a sizable percentage who are becoming pissed off — and rightfully so! — as they come to the realization that the previous generation has screwed the world up pretty badly, and they’re about to be left holding the bag.”

      Truer words were never spoken. I would not be surprized if the epic fail could be traced back to probably a few dozen people (crooks) working in capitalist first world nations trying to further themselves has come full circle to the expense of us sheep.

    • SnowboardingTobi
    • 8 years ago

    1) We allow the stupid to breed.

    2) We fear disciplining bad children.

    3) Moral fiber is crumbling.

    4) There is a horrible notion that respect must be earned, when in fact respect should always be given first — after that then make up your mind.

    5) Popular culture glorifies bad things as good things to have/achieve.

    Edit:
    6) A lack of understanding of what putting in hard work means

      • Mystic-G
      • 8 years ago

      Basically mentioned everything I could think of. I believe #5 is a massive reason to it. It’s incredible how bad its been getting this past decade and as time goes on they glorify worse and worse things.

      • just brew it!
      • 8 years ago

      #2 (lack of discipline) is definitely an issue. In some cases it isn’t out of fear though; it is out of apathy.

      • bthylafh
      • 8 years ago

      7) Kids on my lawn.

      😛 I broadly agree with what you’re saying.

      What JBI said about parental apathy too; I wonder how much of that is the modern culture of both parents working and thus being too tired and short of time to be a good parent.

      • BiffStroganoffsky
      • 8 years ago

      (1) I’d go further and say we subsidize(d) the stupid to breed by handing out welfare checks based on head counts.

      (2) We don’t fear disciplining bad kids but we don’t like the lawyers and the social workers making us criminals.

      (3) Spare the rod and spoil the child. Every kid has to have a trophy or award now just for participating.

      (4) How can kids respect other people when their parents (sometimes kids themselves) do not respect others or their own kids?

      (5) Remember when smoking weed and drinking was bad? Ah, the good ol’ days.

      (6) Hard work? How about just work. I can’t remember the last time I saw a kid mow a lawn.

        • zimpdagreene
        • 8 years ago

        I would have to agree on Snowdoarding Tobi post and yours also. But this is the start to a long war.

      • ClickClick5
      • 8 years ago

      Shows like er…16 and preggers, that show with the lineup of ass hats (J***** S****), and the economy, LACK OF RESPECT and the attitude that “punishing” your child is bad….

      I see teens acting like the cast from JS and it really saddens me. I saw teens do the whole “San Andreas” thing for a while, but not to the level that the teens these days seem to be doing.

      When I talked to a few WWII vets, I could not help but wonder if they look on at everything now and think to themselves, “was what I did to save this country worth it?”

      Kindergarten kids talking back, flipping off and disrespecting their parents and teachers?
      Thinking it is cool to have a kid at 14-16 because a “famous” Disney star did?
      Beating up a child or a girlfriend because you are trying to emit an alpha presence?


      • albundy
      • 8 years ago

      1) We allow the stupid to breed. [i<] If that were controlled, we would cease to exist, as a majority of the population falls into the stupid or brain dead catagory[/i<] 2) We fear disciplining bad children. [i<] I guess Russell Peters was right when he said "Start beatin yo kids" [/i<] 3) Moral fiber is crumbling. [i<] Your definition of morality falls within your class. A kid raised by a crack dealing family in the NYC ghetto who makes him/her sell the same way as the monkey in Hangover 2 might have a slightly different view when rioting and pillaging. [/i<] 4) There is a horrible notion that respect must be earned, when in fact respect should always be given first -- after that then make up your mind. [i<] without #2 and 3, there is no respect, so why bother looking for it? [/i<] 5) Popular culture glorifies bad things as good things to have/achieve. [i<] poor kids used to have decent shows on public tv, but all that's being shown now are reality shows with no moral fiber whatsoever [/i<] Edit: 6) A lack of understanding of what putting in hard work means [i<] kids that have no moral support, no discipline, and are surrounded by poverty... do you really expect them to understand what hard work is? there's nothing positive in their life...except for getting free $hit from riots. [/i<]

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 8 years ago

        This really should by voted up much higher. You make some good and salient points.

        Too bad people only ever want to hear talking points and blame the victim.

        And again the usual cowards have no response but just vote down.

      • VILLAIN_xx
      • 8 years ago

      I gave you a +1 because youre pretty spot on. Number 3 should be the very top as everything else you mentioned is related to it.

      I can’t help but feel that the media and news has been purposely corrupted and is a big part of challenging everything you mentioned here. The news feeds what people should learn, know and feel. You can never inform or educate people properly if you never mention the full truth but give selective data and stories. The media seems to degrade intelligent thought and/or provoke what feels good instead of what is morally correct. Blah blah blah, I could go on, but you get the idea.

      Well done Tobi.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      ‘Good’ parenting doesn’t mean you need to beat your kids with a stick. Too many people seem to think the answer to problems is force. Perhaps people like you are part of the reason we’re in the situation we are?

      Digression wont push society forward.

        • VILLAIN_xx
        • 8 years ago

        Is that what disciplining means to you? Beating kids with sticks? Interesting.

        I didnt read anything about abusing kids in his post. 😀

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          Abuse now days takes place more on the mental level because ‘beating’ is considered inhumane, exactly as you pointed out. It’s just as inhumane and can be even more damaging in the long run. It’s like beating someone with oranges in a pillow case so you can’t tell they’re bruised on the outside.

      • anotherengineer
      • 8 years ago

      7) and even with hard work one still possibly can’t earn a living now.

      My great grandfather started working at 13 or 14, bought a house, raised a family.
      My grandfather started working at 16 bought a house and car and raised a family
      My dad started working at 18 bought a house and a car and raised a family

      Kid graduates grade 12 now, works at home depot for min wage and lives in parents basement because rent+food+insurance = or greater than total net income. So basically work till you die with no retirement and nothing to show for it.

      I would be pretty pissed the previous generation messed up a working class system that let a person earn a living for the past 500 years go up in smoke in the past 30 years.

      I worry for what is in store for me for the next 30 yrs and my children after that.

        • Xylker
        • 8 years ago

        Look, I am not all that smart, privileged, or good looking.

        Nevertheless, after I barely made it through high-school and an Army “career,” I am now comfortably making six figures.

        How?

        By paying attention. By reading the signs that the marketplace emits. I work for a large computer manufacturer whose HQ are in Texas. It was clear to me 15 years ago that I [i<]NEEDED[/i<] to learn about computers, networking, system's administration, etc. Furthermore, I learned how to manage my finances so that I was not spending more than I earned. With the excess I purchased rental property. I am appalled by the abject lack of effort that some put into their life. Worse is the BS that there is no future. Human wants appear to be boundless. The creativity that brings a product or service for those wants generally bring profit to the person or business that provides the product or service. It is as simple a formula as eat fewer calories than you expend and you will lose weight. It comes down to desire and discipline.

          • Thrashdog
          • 8 years ago

          Good for you! I have to point, out, through, that in 1996, unemployment was at 5.4% and tumbling fast, a brand new sector of the economy was opening up for anybody who wanted to learn, and prospects for the future were good. In 2011, unemployment is hovering between 9% and 10%, the economy is in the dumpster, and opportunities are scarce. I do my best to take the long view, but right now I can count on one hand the number of entry-level positions that are listed nationally in my field (one which was booming while I was in school for it, mind you) and the fact that I got through college without taking on debt and I’m working on contract for effectively minimum wage makes me one of the lucky ones in my graduating class. Eventually things will come around, but in the meantime my life is essentially on hold for some of its most critical years, and I’m pretty much stuck like this until external factors dictate otherwise. It’s a frustrating place to be.

      • trackerben
      • 8 years ago

      Let me add – all these result from the loss of objective individual moral standards recognized by communities and enforced by social systems. These standards are mainly Christian in provenance and effect. But historians have noted we can’t have civilizations imbued with the high levels of trust needed for maintaining economically virtuous productivity without, at the minimum, evolved mimicry of the base Noahide laws.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      Gotta love your blame the victim mentality. Of course none of their behavior could have anything to do with the economy or the fact we’ve destroyed their futures.

      Nope it couldn’t possibly be that.

      • Kaleid
      • 8 years ago

      1) And who should determine this?

      2) Disciplining them for what?

      3) Define moral fiber

      4) Yes, it must be earned as in many cases it is not justified.

      5) This is true. Everyone should have everything, which is not possible.
      [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP6L5S14ygY[/url<]

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      Here’s my way of interpreting your edicts:

      1. Everyone who has ever voted republican gets sterilized.

      2. Children who act up in private schools get the death sentence. Bastinado in the public schools.

      3. Exterminate all christians. Hell, muslims too. Or anyone that openly shows their religious beliefs.

      Adults who violate ethics and morality rules and laws will be flogged and pilloried in the public square.

      All adulterers, hypocrites, loose women, those who worship false gods (which is all of them including and especially greed), the money lenders etc. will be stoned to death.

      4. You conflate civility with respect and there is no way to enforce this unless you want to have people stomped to death by police for any perceived infraction.

      5. Only government run media that runs propaganda 24/7.

      6. Forced labor camps for all under and unemployed youth. Additionally all white collar workers, CEOS and anyone else that have never gotten their hands dirty in their lives will now enjoy toiling in the fields for their glorious motherland.

      Your comment is a ridiculous “you kids get off my lawn” comment combined with the morally bankrupt rhetoric of the right. We’re all older now. It’s our job to help the youth not to condemn them because you’re afraid of being old. Lacking empathy is not moral superiority.

        • trackerben
        • 8 years ago

        Your interpretative predisposition in response to SnowboardingTobi’s #4 has led you to offer:

        1) political eugenics
        2) murder of innocents
        3) community cleansing
        4) Hobbesean top-down extremes
        5) servile Goodthink
        6) generational slave labor, reeducation collectives

        Along with painful allusions to clericalism, statist supremacy, unjust sanctions, and totalitarian policing. You obviously can invoke slippery-slope doom scenarios with the best of them, and a serious discussion of unintended consequences is always useful. But really, the post you responded to is no Mein Kampf. For that you should have kept it up with LiquidSpace’s #24. I would have enjoyed that.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          The point is that his points are so far open to interpretation as to be meaningless.

          Which is why he is voted up so high – and posts like Jambe’s are not. People want platitudes and bromides and don’t care about the implementation – which is exactly why I showed the implementations that I did.

          The fact that he deftly sidestepped economic inequalities and the fact that we’ve bankrupted our children’s future for less than 10 percent of the population – which are the actual root causes here – is just the gravy on the top.

            • trackerben
            • 8 years ago

            His 1st point is relevant in one sense, that a higher average IQ in a given national population affords it certain advantages as in the Ashkenazi hypothesis. You could have questioned why this is a problem being framed as subject to remedy via social sanction and then, within authoritarian context, put up your worst-case scenario. His 2nd on the fear of disciplining children actually understates what’s going on. Many parents are more tired than fearful of the difficulties with role modeling and are resorting to regularly drugging and/or deeply institutionalizing their wayward offspring. On his 3rd (as well as 6th) point about crumbling moral fiber and work ethic, yes it all sounds too pat but then neither was there any malign nor distracting outburst needing your attention. I actually agree with his 4th point, that a minimum of respect is owed an authority so long as he does not work to overwhelm your moral way of life. On the fifth point, one has only to view the spectrum of popular literature and media from the moral fables of the Victorian era to todays’ post-modernist fantasies to determine the truth of that claim.

            It is an observed and historical fact of nature that people are each born, provided for, and situated differently in life. The attributes which best describe most people’s responses to this unpleasant fact are base and common. The few who unexpectedly rebel against (or opt out of) this innate predisposition to zero-sum one’s fellows have a much, much rarer talent.

            Which is why I agree that our future has been mortgaged and our children indebted. Yet this multi-crises situation is an artifact of the global fiat monies established in the 1970s, a system which governments find rather convenient, all things being equal, as a supposedly cost-free way to crowd out private sector borrowings in the financial markets in favor of lending regimes to sovereigns, so as to fund constant long-run growth in those same sovereigns.

            • trackerben
            • 8 years ago

            Lest you think that was the ponzi scheme, you are missing the real show. The one where US GDP doubled and tens of $trillion of wealth was added between 2000 and 2009. Due less to productivity growth which has slowed down since the 1990s, but more to the speculative frenzy of an entire generation of homeowners who continually bet on the positive feedback between rising home values and widening availability of home financing. Where the actors were fueled by easy credit first loosened during the great deregulatory and economic boom of the Reagan years. That era was kept going until it was no more by the bankers and the agencies who together repackaged and fed into the world markets way too many uncertain mortgage-backed securities.

            Now the value of all home stock is down by 30% since the 2007 peak. But this also implies a house for sale as of 1999 is still worth far more today, about double on average. It was mostly good for homeowners when both Iraq and China got lucky due to the US overresponse to 9/11 (One got free and modernized to export cheap oil, the other got cheaper oil to modernize with). But this democratized land bonanza did nothing for the minority on the sidelines. Who by the unfortunate and in some cases unjust fact of being born, provided for, and situated differently in life, had missed out on the last and largest wave of financial inflows in history.

            So where did and does most of the world’s money go? Big-corporate earnings are healthy, companies which are lean and flush with cash go on investing capital and generating revenue. But lending to small and meduim businesses are unreasonably down, like it is somehow verboten to extend credit to the sector which represents the biggest part as well the fastest growth of the ecomomy. As all those funds can’t release back to the world markets, and aren’t getting to the SMEs, and given big businesses have been (until very recently, that is) raising funds via equities and commercial paper, the only place these funds are “finding” the risk/returns they seek is in borrowings by the US government and deleveraging by the Federal Reserve.

            I’ve seen figures which show that as much as 40% of all domestic bank lending is to the US government at all state levels. This is not counting the “reserve effect” of the $Trillions-dollar pool which showcases the world’s reserve currency, the unique status which allows it to QE its way out of trouble, to the anger of the BRICS and on the demise of the PIIGs. The irony is that the Federal Reserve through monetary-inflationary policies is orchestrating outflows back to foreign principals and their banks and sovereign agencies, who are still buying Treasuries and equivalent to this very minute.

        • A_Pickle
        • 8 years ago

        Give me a break. I love how Republicans and Christians (and more often than not, Republican Christians) play the victim card as though they’re some persecuted minority. There’s like, 8% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, and there’s a solid majority of Christians in America (something like 85% and, thankfully, [i<]falling[/i<]). Nevermind the fact that Christians also hold a majority of political offices in America, and as a result these "persecuted" and "oppressed" Christians have managed to institute the following: 1.) A Federal ban on homosexual marriage 2.) Completely ineffective abstinence-only sex education in a number of states, resulting in higher teen birth rates. 3.) Inability for women to get abortions in a number of states. 4.) A general disdain for intellect and the scientific method, particularly with respect to the Theory of Evolution and Anthropogenic Global Warming. The fact is, it's Republican policies that have gotten this country where it is today. We're bankrupt because of two wars, one of which was absolutely unjustifiable (and the justification of the other is highly debatable), two tax cuts that gutted government revenue (and are probably the single most contributing reason to our debt), a Defense budget that has risen 9% year-over-year since 2001, and the Medicare Prescription Drug program (unpaid for) which benefited... a key Republican voting bloc. Your comment is over-the-top hyperbole in response to someone's comment. Jesus. Is there anything anyone can disagree with you on before you insist that it's the fast-track to Soviet Russia-style socialism?

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          Lol hardly. You clearly haven’t read my other posts (or the one you’re responding to). I’m about as far from a rightist as you can get. My point was that enforcement was in the eye of the beholder and as such his comments come down to moronic talking points rather than anything approaching a plan.

          Who decides who is stupid? To me that’s anyone making under a million dollars that has ever voted republican. To you it might mean something else. It’s an idiotic comment to make unless _everyone_ agrees on who is defined as stupid. Ergo it’s a pointless, meaningless set of retarded talking points. Also you should read the entirety of my comment before posting.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            I clearly haven’t. My apologies, sir… 😀

    • TheEmrys
    • 8 years ago

    There has been a steady erosion in the the pack dynamics. It started with the marginalization of the elderly and has spread to a thorough “question authority” mantra. I’m not saying that authority is right, but good lord people, put some boundaries on your kid. Its kind of a good thing to be a little afraid of the old man. If you have the luck to have one, that is.

    • Anvil
    • 8 years ago

    As a non-Brit, I can tell that you seem to be reading the Daily Mail/Fail/Heil.

    From what I gather amongst my British associates…don’t.

      • ludi
      • 8 years ago

      You don’t have to be reading the (mostly tabloid-grade) British papers to see that there’s a broader problem fomenting amongst the European underclass. France just had major riots in 2009 and 2010, and the 2011 UK riots started in one part of London around one neighborhood police station, yet spread to multiple cities literally all over England in a span of four days.

      That’s not a localized problem that can be dismissed with a handwave and a promise.

        • trackerben
        • 8 years ago

        Yes there is broader social problem exacerbated by demographic and economic trends. Fifth-stage depopulation and proto-Islamist migrant societies may be the obvious biggies, but the trigger of decivilization zones is socio-economic deconstruction. May I refer you to certain views at another british paper:

        [url<]http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2011/05/31/the-classical-view-of-the-global-recession/#axzz1VRTK4244[/url<] The classical view of the global recession Gavyn Davies "...Lucas asks whether the US is shifting towards a European-style welfare state, which he says has restricted European levels of GDP per head by about 20 to 30 per cent for several decades. And his evidence for this conclusion is contained in the second graph, which shows that European levels of GDP per head have stopped converging on the US level since the 1970s. This would not be expected since, in free market systems, there is a tendency for countries with relatively low productivity levels to converge continuously on the leader, as best practice technologies are diffused over time. According to Lucas, the European welfare state has prevented that..."

      • cheesyking
      • 8 years ago

      yeah, the d mail is a comic not a news paper!

    • 5150
    • 8 years ago

    *Hugs rural Montana*

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 8 years ago

      Ah yes, no problems with other people when there are no other people around.

        • DrCR
        • 8 years ago

        The ones who are around though tend to be those that pull their own weight. It’s hard to be a bum when the result means no dinner.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Perfect place for a serial murderer.

        • 5150
        • 8 years ago

        You might want to try that somewhere where people aren’t armed to the teeth.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          [url<]http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-01/anatomy-serial-killer[/url<] <-- I think this is what he was going for.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This