The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program. I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/crime-rates-america

dajo9 said:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program. I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/crime-rates-america

---

Hi Dajo - I think you and Cal88 are both right.

I believe strong family unit is an important foundation for raising productive members of society. As a father, I would like to think that I add value to the development of my children. I don't know if you are a father, but I would hope you don't believe fathers or mothers are superfluous.

What Cal88 might be failing to recognize is that, while he may be right on the impact of cultural factors, the underlying culture is not innate or inherent to a race or color. The culture is most likely the product of our history. Could it be that poverty, infiltration of drugs, and resulting crime rate and incarceration are the byproduct of our country's history (what I view as "institutional racism")? Whatever caused the mass incarceration of males of one race will continue to perpetuate the cultural problem. How do we end this cycle to create a more just society for everyone?

To Cal88: How is it valid for those who, not because of their own bad actions but because of the consequences of our history, start the race closer to the finish line to argue that those who started behind should just win the race based on merit? We, as a country (and I view my country holistically across generations), created the disparity. Let's work together to create a situation where, when we talk about merit-based, it is not about just about allowing the perpetuation of disparity. I believe in merit-based results only when it truly is merit-based.

I also don't believe the solution lies with just one source. I think this has to be addressed by the government, by communities, by individuals, and across generations. It took a lot of bad actions to create this mess. It won't be done by just others or just in one generation.

Needless to say, I don't have the answers. I am willing to listen to all sides. I only can see from my experiences. There is a whole tapestry of knowledge and experience that lie beyond my own mind and learnings.

My parents were Asian immigrants who brought with them not wealth but a sense of family. They were not burdened by culture defined by generations of racism in our country. I don't want my experience to be used to justify injustice for another group.

Dajo - Although I lean closer to your view point, I think it does this country great disservice when all we are interested in doing is talking over someone, shaming others with name calling, and thinking that someone else's perspective derived from their own experiences has no value. If we value diversity, let's really value diversity. And let's listen. We can still learn, even if not persuaded, from any perspective.

Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020 and it won't end well this time either

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/joe-biden-is-the-hillary-clinton-of-2020-and-it-wont-end-well-this-time-either?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

bearister said:

---

Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020 and it won't end well this time either

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/joe-biden-is-the-hillary-clinton-of-2020-and-it-wont-end-well-this-time-either?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Joe Biden is a man. I think that's worth about 5% of the vote right there.

dbklalw said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program. I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/crime-rates-america

---

Hi Dajo - I think you and Cal88 are both right.

I believe strong family unit is an important foundation for raising productive members of society. As a father, I would like to think that I add value to the development of my children. I don't know if you are a father, but I would hope you don't believe fathers or mothers are superfluous.

What Cal88 might be failing to recognize is that, while he may be right on the impact of cultural factors, the underlying culture is not innate or inherent to a race or color. The culture is most likely the product of our history. Could it be that poverty, infiltration of drugs, and resulting crime rate and incarceration are the byproduct of our country's history (what I view as "institutional racism")? Whatever caused the mass incarceration of males of one race will continue to perpetuate the cultural problem. How do we end this cycle to create a more just society for everyone?

To Cal88: How is it valid for those who, not because of their own bad actions but because of the consequences of our history, start the race closer to the finish line to argue that those who started behind should just win the race based on merit? We, as a country (and I view my country holistically across generations), created the disparity. Let's work together to create a situation where, when we talk about merit-based, it is not about just about allowing the perpetuation of disparity. I believe in merit-based results only when it truly is merit-based.

I also don't believe the solution lies with just one source. I think this has to be addressed by the government, by communities, by individuals, and across generations. It took a lot of bad actions to create this mess. It won't be done by just others or just in one generation.

Needless to say, I don't have the answers. I am willing to listen to all sides. I only can see from my experiences. There is a whole tapestry of knowledge and experience that lie beyond my own mind and learnings.

My parents were Asian immigrants who brought with them not wealth but a sense of family. They were not burdened by culture defined by generations of racism in our country. I don't want my experience to be used to justify injustice for another group.

Dajo - Although I lean closer to your view point, I think it does this country great disservice when all we are interested in doing is talking over someone, shaming others with name calling, and thinking that someone else's perspective derived from their own experiences has no value. If we value diversity, let's really value diversity. And let's listen. We can still learn, even if not persuaded, from any perspective.

---

You are reading things into what I wrote that I did not say. I did not say the family unit is not important. I grew up in a fatherless household and have 2 children in my household right now. I know all about family units. I also grew up in a city that had the highest murder rate in the country one year in the 1990s (San Bernardino), so I know a little about crime too. Cal88 repeated a specific rightwing talking point (complete with ready-made memes, which he has in abundance for some reason) about the Great Society and crime. It is false. I challenged him on that talking point.

You have 7 posts now, so you may not be aware of some of the histories. Cal88 has a long history of quickly producing rightwing talking points with memes and cut-and-paste jobs, etc. He is especially prone to rightwing talking points of the Putin variety - this goes back to my interactions with him from 2016. At some point, when I'm being lied to, I stop listening. What do you do?

dajo9 said:

---

dbklalw said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program. I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/crime-rates-america

---

Hi Dajo - I think you and Cal88 are both right.

I believe strong family unit is an important foundation for raising productive members of society. As a father, I would like to think that I add value to the development of my children. I don't know if you are a father, but I would hope you don't believe fathers or mothers are superfluous.

What Cal88 might be failing to recognize is that, while he may be right on the impact of cultural factors, the underlying culture is not innate or inherent to a race or color. The culture is most likely the product of our history. Could it be that poverty, infiltration of drugs, and resulting crime rate and incarceration are the byproduct of our country's history (what I view as "institutional racism")? Whatever caused the mass incarceration of males of one race will continue to perpetuate the cultural problem. How do we end this cycle to create a more just society for everyone?

To Cal88: How is it valid for those who, not because of their own bad actions but because of the consequences of our history, start the race closer to the finish line to argue that those who started behind should just win the race based on merit? We, as a country (and I view my country holistically across generations), created the disparity. Let's work together to create a situation where, when we talk about merit-based, it is not about just about allowing the perpetuation of disparity. I believe in merit-based results only when it truly is merit-based.

I also don't believe the solution lies with just one source. I think this has to be addressed by the government, by communities, by individuals, and across generations. It took a lot of bad actions to create this mess. It won't be done by just others or just in one generation.

Needless to say, I don't have the answers. I am willing to listen to all sides. I only can see from my experiences. There is a whole tapestry of knowledge and experience that lie beyond my own mind and learnings.

My parents were Asian immigrants who brought with them not wealth but a sense of family. They were not burdened by culture defined by generations of racism in our country. I don't want my experience to be used to justify injustice for another group.

Dajo - Although I lean closer to your view point, I think it does this country great disservice when all we are interested in doing is talking over someone, shaming others with name calling, and thinking that someone else's perspective derived from their own experiences has no value. If we value diversity, let's really value diversity. And let's listen. We can still learn, even if not persuaded, from any perspective.

---

You are reading things into what I wrote that I did not say. I did not say the family unit is not important. I grew up in a fatherless household and have 2 children in my household right now. I know all about family units. I also grew up in a city that had the highest murder rate in the country one year in the 1990s (San Bernardino), so I know a little about crime too. Cal88 repeated a specific rightwing talking point (complete with ready-made memes, which he has in abundance for some reason) about the Great Society and crime. It is false. I challenged him on that talking point.

You have 7 posts now, so you may not be aware of some of the histories. Cal88 has a long history of quickly producing rightwing talking points with memes and cut-and-paste jobs, etc. He is especially prone to rightwing talking points of the Putin variety - this goes back to my interactions with him from 2016. At some point, when I'm being lied to, I stop listening. What do you do?

---

No, you haven't "stopped listening", you're emotionally incapable of dealing with a different opinion on subjects like foreign policy or Russian conspiracy theories. Instead of, for once, taking the high road, as dbklalw suggested in his well thought out post above, you invariably have to resort to pathetic ad hominems.

As to my "long history", I've been posting on here from day 1, and on the Gobears list years before high speed internet, I've met with many longtime Cyberbears/BI posters, so you can take your pathetic smear job and shove it.

Cal88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dbklalw said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program. I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/crime-rates-america

---

Hi Dajo - I think you and Cal88 are both right.

I believe strong family unit is an important foundation for raising productive members of society. As a father, I would like to think that I add value to the development of my children. I don't know if you are a father, but I would hope you don't believe fathers or mothers are superfluous.

What Cal88 might be failing to recognize is that, while he may be right on the impact of cultural factors, the underlying culture is not innate or inherent to a race or color. The culture is most likely the product of our history. Could it be that poverty, infiltration of drugs, and resulting crime rate and incarceration are the byproduct of our country's history (what I view as "institutional racism")? Whatever caused the mass incarceration of males of one race will continue to perpetuate the cultural problem. How do we end this cycle to create a more just society for everyone?

To Cal88: How is it valid for those who, not because of their own bad actions but because of the consequences of our history, start the race closer to the finish line to argue that those who started behind should just win the race based on merit? We, as a country (and I view my country holistically across generations), created the disparity. Let's work together to create a situation where, when we talk about merit-based, it is not about just about allowing the perpetuation of disparity. I believe in merit-based results only when it truly is merit-based.

I also don't believe the solution lies with just one source. I think this has to be addressed by the government, by communities, by individuals, and across generations. It took a lot of bad actions to create this mess. It won't be done by just others or just in one generation.

Needless to say, I don't have the answers. I am willing to listen to all sides. I only can see from my experiences. There is a whole tapestry of knowledge and experience that lie beyond my own mind and learnings.

My parents were Asian immigrants who brought with them not wealth but a sense of family. They were not burdened by culture defined by generations of racism in our country. I don't want my experience to be used to justify injustice for another group.

Dajo - Although I lean closer to your view point, I think it does this country great disservice when all we are interested in doing is talking over someone, shaming others with name calling, and thinking that someone else's perspective derived from their own experiences has no value. If we value diversity, let's really value diversity. And let's listen. We can still learn, even if not persuaded, from any perspective.

---

You are reading things into what I wrote that I did not say. I did not say the family unit is not important. I grew up in a fatherless household and have 2 children in my household right now. I know all about family units. I also grew up in a city that had the highest murder rate in the country one year in the 1990s (San Bernardino), so I know a little about crime too. Cal88 repeated a specific rightwing talking point (complete with ready-made memes, which he has in abundance for some reason) about the Great Society and crime. It is false. I challenged him on that talking point.

You have 7 posts now, so you may not be aware of some of the histories. Cal88 has a long history of quickly producing rightwing talking points with memes and cut-and-paste jobs, etc. He is especially prone to rightwing talking points of the Putin variety - this goes back to my interactions with him from 2016. At some point, when I'm being lied to, I stop listening. What do you do?

---

No, you haven't "stopped listening", you're emotionally incapable of dealing with a different opinion on subjects like foreign policy or Russian conspiracy theories. Instead of, for once, taking the high road, as dbklalw suggested in his well thought out post above, you invariably have to resort to pathetic ad hominems.

As to my "long history", I've been posting on here from day 1, and on the Gobears list years before high speed internet, I've met with many longtime Cyberbears/BI posters, so you can take your pathetic smear job and shove it.

---

But do you care to address my question?

dbklalw said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program. I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/crime-rates-america

---

Hi Dajo - I think you and Cal88 are both right.

I believe strong family unit is an important foundation for raising productive members of society. As a father, I would like to think that I add value to the development of my children. I don't know if you are a father, but I would hope you don't believe fathers or mothers are superfluous.

What Cal88 might be failing to recognize is that, while he may be right on the impact of cultural factors, the underlying culture is not innate or inherent to a race or color. The culture is most likely the product of our history. Could it be that poverty, infiltration of drugs, and resulting crime rate and incarceration are the byproduct of our country's history (what I view as "institutional racism")? Whatever caused the mass incarceration of males of one race will continue to perpetuate the cultural problem. How do we end this cycle to create a more just society for everyone?

To Cal88: How is it valid for those who, not because of their own bad actions but because of the consequences of our history, start the race closer to the finish line to argue that those who started behind should just win the race based on merit? We, as a country (and I view my country holistically across generations), created the disparity. Let's work together to create a situation where, when we talk about merit-based, it is not about just about allowing the perpetuation of disparity. I believe in merit-based results only when it truly is merit-based.

I also don't believe the solution lies with just one source. I think this has to be addressed by the government, by communities, by individuals, and across generations. It took a lot of bad actions to create this mess. It won't be done by just others or just in one generation.

Needless to say, I don't have the answers. I am willing to listen to all sides. I only can see from my experiences. There is a whole tapestry of knowledge and experience that lie beyond my own mind and learnings.

My parents were Asian immigrants who brought with them not wealth but a sense of family. They were not burdened by culture defined by generations of racism in our country. I don't want my experience to be used to justify injustice for another group.

Dajo - Although I lean closer to your view point, I think it does this country great disservice when all we are interested in doing is talking over someone, shaming others with name calling, and thinking that someone else's perspective derived from their own experiences has no value. If we value diversity, let's really value diversity. And let's listen. We can still learn, even if not persuaded, from any perspective.

---

I actually agree completely with the bolded part of your response, and other points you've made. I have a lot of friends who are African immigrants that have done very well. So I am aware of the misguided tendency for some to erroneously attribute high crime rates and social dysfunction to race.

I think you have to point out as well that a history of cultural hardship in a community does not necessarily result in high crime rates. You have many communities that have gone through much more difficult 20th century histories than those of Black Americans, like Armenians, Ukrainians or Cambodians, people who were literally exterminated by the millions.

I think the main difference here is that those communities survived their historic hardships and traumas with their family units and social fiber intact. Communities like the Dalits or Indian "untouchables", who have been at the bottom of a thousands year old uninterrupted ruthless caste system, have also thrived in the US, for that same reason.

The destruction of the traditional family unit is a relatively modern phenomenon, dating to the cultural shifts and the modern welfare system of the 1960s.

Quote:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile [sigh] Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program.

---

The "Great Society" didn't cut poverty in half, that's a common misconception. The postwar economy, which was underlined by a strong industrial growth, with high-paying blue collar jobs in urban centers, was slowly but surely reducing poverty rates, well before the onset of LBJ's welfare program:



The Black poverty rate, which was dropping sharply before the mid-1960s, stagnated after that. It's been rising for the past 20 years. Before the 1970s, Black family units were strong, and out of wedlock births were pretty rare, which resulted in much lower crime rates in that community before the 1960s.

Quote:

---

I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

---

Incarceration rates have gone through the roof in the 1990s. There are many problems associated with this, like the fact that it doesn't address the root causes of crime, but as a brute force (and expensive) method of reducing crime, it does work.

dajo9 said:

---

You have 7 posts now, so you may not be aware of some of the histories. Cal88 has a long history of quickly producing rightwing talking points with memes and cut-and-paste jobs, etc. He is especially prone to rightwing talking points of the Putin variety - this goes back to my interactions with him from 2016. At some point, when I'm being lied to, I stop listening. What do you do?

---

I would add to this his arguments on climate change. Somewhere in one of the long OT threads on this, he made as part of his argument that there had once been a panic about "global cooling," as a way of proving that the most recent "global warming" claims are also likely false. As part of his evidence, he provided some Time Magazine covers about "global cooling." One was shown to be false, a Photoshop job, and two others were accurate covers, but the related articles had nothing to do with "global cooling," rather one was about the energy crisis and another about a particularly cold winter in the United States. He continued to claim these were true articles, but I went behind the Time Magazine paywall and found the article texts, demonstrating that they were not what he said they were.

He just kind of ignored it and moved on after concrete proof that his evidence was bunk. I stopped taking him seriously after that.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You have 7 posts now, so you may not be aware of some of the histories. Cal88 has a long history of quickly producing rightwing talking points with memes and cut-and-paste jobs, etc. He is especially prone to rightwing talking points of the Putin variety - this goes back to my interactions with him from 2016. At some point, when I'm being lied to, I stop listening. What do you do?

---

I would add to this his arguments on climate change. Somewhere in one of the long OT threads on this, he made as part of his argument that there had once been a panic about "global cooling," as a way of proving that the most recent "global warming" claims are also likely false. As part of his evidence, he provided some Time Magazine covers about "global cooling." One was shown to be false, a Photoshop job, and two others were accurate covers, but the related articles had nothing to do with "global cooling," rather one was about the energy crisis and another about a particularly cold winter in the United States. He continued to claim these were true articles, but I went behind the Time Magazine paywall and found the article texts, demonstrating that they were not what he said they were.

He just kind of ignored it and moved on after concrete proof that his evidence was bunk. I stopped taking him seriously after that.

---

The great thing about hard-core right wingers is that although they love to cite things, they hate reading, which is why it's so much fun pointing all the things they get wrong.

Ever wonder why there are so many conservative think-tanks, but you hardly ever hear about liberal think-tanks? Because liberals don't want to be told how to think, while conservatives are only too happy to join in the group-think.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You have 7 posts now, so you may not be aware of some of the histories. Cal88 has a long history of quickly producing rightwing talking points with memes and cut-and-paste jobs, etc. He is especially prone to rightwing talking points of the Putin variety - this goes back to my interactions with him from 2016. At some point, when I'm being lied to, I stop listening. What do you do?

---

I would add to this his arguments on climate change. Somewhere in one of the long OT threads on this, he made as part of his argument that there had once been a panic about "global cooling," as a way of proving that the most recent "global warming" claims are also likely false. As part of his evidence, he provided some Time Magazine covers about "global cooling." One was shown to be false, a Photoshop job, and two others were accurate covers, but the related articles had nothing to do with "global cooling," rather one was about the energy crisis and another about a particularly cold winter in the United States. He continued to claim these were true articles, but I went behind the Time Magazine paywall and found the article texts, demonstrating that they were not what he said they were.

He just kind of ignored it and moved on after concrete proof that his evidence was bunk. I stopped taking him seriously after that.

---

Bad faith, Sy.

For starts, don't talk about me in the third person, it's a total chickenshlt move. Have the decency to address me directly if you're going to attack my positions.

I haven't lost any debate on global warming here, especially not the one on the global cooling scare of the 1970s, when there was a scientific consensus that climate was cooling, with scientists and policy makers clamoring for action against "global cooling". You're lucky the forum search feature only goes back one year, perhaps someone could dig up the thread for kicks.

And if you'd like, I can take you to the woodshed and prove this point once again in the next week or two. At which point you'd shut up about it for another few years, then claim down the road that I was proven to be completely wrong on the subject...

This is a good board, but most on here haven't done enough research on the subject of global warming, or approached it with an open mind, instead you will simply defer to the established consensus, mostly out of cultural conformity. One of the unfortunate consequences of Trump's election is that this kind of cultural rigidity has hardened.

Cal88's not a simple right winger. The global warming thing is reactionary but other things aren't. He's anti neo liberal creeps- Clinton, Biden, Macron. Anti interventionist US which puts him on the Rand Paul/ Sanders spectrum away from the US bipartisan consensus. Anti- Israel. Anti-globalist. I'd guess Populist but more on the left than right flank

Cal88 said:

---

For starts, don't talk about me in the third person, it's a total chickenshlt move. Have the decency to address me directly if you're going to attack my positions.

---

Fine. After that exchange, I decided you were not to be taken seriously.

If anyone goes back and digs it up, I think they'll likely agree that my description was accurate.

Quote:

---

The great thing about hard-core right wingers is that although they love to cite things, they hate reading, which is why it's so much fun pointing all the things they get wrong.

Ever wonder why there are so many conservative think-tanks, but you hardly ever hear about liberal think-tanks? Because liberals don't want to be told how to think, while conservatives are only too happen to join in the group-think.

---

Because anyone who disagrees with me must be a "hard-core right winger"... Right.

As to the think tanks, nearly all of academia, and the great majority of the legacy media is pretty much a liberal think tank. There are varying degrees of intellectual rigor across this large domain, but in terms of political dogma in most of the MSM or academia, it's either liberal/neoliberal, or the door.

FWIW I think most conservative think tanks are also mired in their own dogmas, their agendas usually being driven by even more vile political doctrines like neoconservatism, or the nefarious agendas of their funders.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Cal88's not a simple right winger. The global warming thing is reactionary but other things aren't. He's anti neo liberal creeps- Clinton, Biden, Macron. Anti interventionist US which puts him on the Rand Paul/ Sanders spectrum away from the US bipartisan consensus. Anti- Israel. Anti-globalist. I'd guess Populist but more on the left than right flank

---

True AB, I would have been more comfortable with a Sanders presidency than with Trump.

Trump did run to the left of Hillary on many key issues, including non-interventionism and anti-neoliberalism (opposition to the TPP for example). He's totally backtracked on the former now, with swamp creatures like Bolton and Abrams running his foreign policy.

At this point I would support Sanders, Tulsi, Yang or Warren over Trump.

It's not helpful to think of my position on global warming as "reactionary", a lot of people who are of the same page as me are ecologically-minded, and have come to that conclusion by researching the subject. It's unfortunate that this subject has become so politically and ideologically loaded as to hinder that kind of personal fact-finding process.

Is anyone surprised that there are so many fatherless African American families given the incarceration rates? Incarceration may reduce some crime but it obviously has had some unintended consequences.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Is anyone surprised that there are so many fatherless African American families given the incarceration rates? Incarceration may reduce some crime but it obviously has had some unintended consequences.

---

https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2643&context=luc_diss

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

For starts, don't talk about me in the third person, it's a total chickenshlt move. Have the decency to address me directly if you're going to attack my positions.

---

Fine. After that exchange, I decided you were not to be taken seriously.

If anyone goes back and digs it up, I think they'll likely agree that my description was accurate.

---

If you are logged in you can search "forever". I gave it a quick look and didn't find it. I'm sure with more effort it can be done.

Cal88 said:

---

For starts, don't talk about me in the third person, it's a total chickenshlt move.

---

Physician, heal thyself.

Cal88 said:

---

dbklalw said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program. I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/crime-rates-america

---

Hi Dajo - I think you and Cal88 are both right.

I believe strong family unit is an important foundation for raising productive members of society. As a father, I would like to think that I add value to the development of my children. I don't know if you are a father, but I would hope you don't believe fathers or mothers are superfluous.

What Cal88 might be failing to recognize is that, while he may be right on the impact of cultural factors, the underlying culture is not innate or inherent to a race or color. The culture is most likely the product of our history. Could it be that poverty, infiltration of drugs, and resulting crime rate and incarceration are the byproduct of our country's history (what I view as "institutional racism")? Whatever caused the mass incarceration of males of one race will continue to perpetuate the cultural problem. How do we end this cycle to create a more just society for everyone?

To Cal88: How is it valid for those who, not because of their own bad actions but because of the consequences of our history, start the race closer to the finish line to argue that those who started behind should just win the race based on merit? We, as a country (and I view my country holistically across generations), created the disparity. Let's work together to create a situation where, when we talk about merit-based, it is not about just about allowing the perpetuation of disparity. I believe in merit-based results only when it truly is merit-based.

I also don't believe the solution lies with just one source. I think this has to be addressed by the government, by communities, by individuals, and across generations. It took a lot of bad actions to create this mess. It won't be done by just others or just in one generation.

Needless to say, I don't have the answers. I am willing to listen to all sides. I only can see from my experiences. There is a whole tapestry of knowledge and experience that lie beyond my own mind and learnings.

My parents were Asian immigrants who brought with them not wealth but a sense of family. They were not burdened by culture defined by generations of racism in our country. I don't want my experience to be used to justify injustice for another group.

Dajo - Although I lean closer to your view point, I think it does this country great disservice when all we are interested in doing is talking over someone, shaming others with name calling, and thinking that someone else's perspective derived from their own experiences has no value. If we value diversity, let's really value diversity. And let's listen. We can still learn, even if not persuaded, from any perspective.

---

I actually agree completely with the bolded part of your response, and other points you've made. I have a lot of friends who are African immigrants that have done very well. So I am aware of the misguided tendency for some to erroneously attribute high crime rates and social dysfunction to race.

I think you have to point out as well that a history of cultural hardship in a community does not necessarily result in high crime rates. You have many communities that have gone through much more difficult 20th century histories than those of Black Americans, like Armenians, Ukrainians or Cambodians, people who were literally exterminated by the millions.

I think the main difference here is that those communities survived their historic hardships and traumas with their family units and social fiber intact. Communities like the Dalits or Indian "untouchables", who have been at the bottom of a thousands year old uninterrupted ruthless caste system, have also thrived in the US, for that same reason.

The destruction of the traditional family unit is a relatively modern phenomenon, dating to the cultural shifts and the modern welfare system of the 1960s.

Quote:

---

The Great Society Program cut poverty in half in America. Programs like medicaid continue to benefit millions of Americans and keep them from desperate poverty and ill health.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-drops-third-consecutive-year-2017.html

Russophile [sigh] Cal88 wants to blame high crime on fatherless households and blame that on the Great Society Program.

---

The "Great Society" didn't cut poverty in half, that's a common misconception. The postwar economy, which was underlined by a strong industrial growth, with high-paying blue collar jobs in urban centers, was slowly but surely reducing poverty rates, well before the onset of LBJ's welfare program:



The Black poverty rate, which was dropping sharply before the mid-1960s, stagnated after that. It's been rising for the past 20 years. Before the 1970s, Black family units were strong, and out of wedlock births were pretty rare, which resulted in much lower crime rates in that community before the 1960s.

Quote:

---

I'd like for Cal88 to explain why the crime rate has fallen by half since 1991 despite the continued increase in fatherless households.

---

Incarceration rates have gone through the roof in the 1990s. There are many problems associated with this, like the fact that it doesn't address the root causes of crime, but as a brute force (and expensive) method of reducing crime, it does work.

---

That is a nice chart on incarcerations but it doesn't tell the story. To know the story all you have to do is be alive in America for the last 40+ years. The crime surge was a later Boomer / Gen X phenomenon. Millenials (and the generation after them) just aren't as criminal as those earlier groups, despite growing up in single parent homes. The data bears this out. Juvenile incarceration rates have been halved and the prison population is older than it has ever been. I have charts too!

Also, I'll put you down as opposed to Great Society programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and education funding. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure how this squares with your supposed support for Bernie Sanders. One thing about the candidates you like they (Trump and Sanders) share in common - they both received support from Putin's troll farms.

The removal of lead from our environment has also led (pun intended) to a reduction in violent behavior.

Patti Davis gift wraps a special F you for the Republican Party


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dear-republicans-stop-using-my-father-ronald-reagan-to-justify-your-silence-on-trump/2019/04/30/ed61c6de-6b50-11e9-8f44-e8d8bb1df986_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2741bd4014c0

The separation of African American fathers from families is a manufactured problem because how public assistance is handled for generations..you get more if the father is not present. If you pay more if both parents are home...it could solve that. I get the logic of no father receive more but as policy it has created a needless social problem.

Heck, in Brazil, at one point they figured out paying parents to keep their kids in school was actually cost effective. We're not talking a huge amount of money per family, but enough tot make a difference in raising kids, while in poverty. Apply that to keeping families together, incentivize it...like DUH.

re: lead...good example of environment affecting society. Experiencing child abuse, head injuries and other negative health/environmental issues or physical and emotional trauma can contribute to criminal behavior later in life. Lots of science based research on this.

This is why modern industrial societies have invested in eliminating abuse, trauma, environmental and health risks, and such...because it's actually a major drag on society, making it less productive and filled with seeming unsolvable problems.

In 1980 about 10% of blacks aged 20-34 and high school dropouts were incarcerated. In 2008 37% of blacks aged 20-34 were in jail. Rates also increased dramatically for white and Latino high school drop outs. It's easy to say these are just uneducated kids making a life of crime but what really happened are the misguided War on Crime and War on Drugs and not a crime problem but a prosecution problem. Most of the criminal justice system is staffed by politicians. More than 90% of cases are plea bargained. What easier way to get elected than by showing you are "tough on crime" and removing people at the margins to long sentences for petty crime. The effects of this were economically and culturally devastating .

https://www.amacad.org/publication/incarceration-social-inequality

Cal88 said:

---

Quote:

---

The great thing about hard-core right wingers is that although they love to cite things, they hate reading, which is why it's so much fun pointing all the things they get wrong.

Ever wonder why there are so many conservative think-tanks, but you hardly ever hear about liberal think-tanks? Because liberals don't want to be told how to think, while conservatives are only too happen to join in the group-think.

---

Because anyone who disagrees with me must be a "hard-core right winger"... Right.

As to the think tanks, nearly all of academia, and the great majority of the legacy media is pretty much a liberal think tank. There are varying degrees of intellectual rigor across this large domain, but in terms of political dogma in most of the MSM or academia, it's either liberal/neoliberal, or the door.

FWIW I think most conservative think tanks are also mired in their own dogmas, their agendas usually being driven by even more vile political doctrines like neoconservatism, or the nefarious agendas of their funders.

---

Total agreement Cal88.

they figured out paying parents to keep their kids in school was actually cost effective. We're not talking a huge amount of money per family, but enough tot make a difference in raising kids, while in poverty. Apply that to keeping families together, incentivize it...like DUH.

I've never thought about or encountered this idea. It is a great way to go. Forget being cost effective(which it would be). It would better and save a bunch of young lives.

Thanks AnotherBear!

Anarchistbear said:

---

In 1980 about 10% of blacks aged 20-34 and high school dropouts were incarcerated. In 2008 37% of blacks aged 20-34 were in jail. Rates also increased dramatically for white and Latino high school drop outs. It's easy to say these are just uneducated kids making a life of crime but what really happened iare the misguided War on Crime and War on Drugs and not a crime problem but a prosecution problem. Most of the criminal justice system is staffed by politicians. More than 90% of cases are plea bargained. What easier way to get elected than by showing you are "tough on crime" and removing people at the margins to long sentences for petty crime. The effects of this were economically and culturally devastating .

https://www.amacad.org/publication/incarceration-social-inequality

---

And the government cramping down on crack cocaine to incarcerate more blacks.

I'm not a fan of the drug war either, but the easiest and simplest remedy is to stop using and selling illicit substances -- because it's something everyone has control over. Lowering the highway speed limit to 40 would be both arbitrary and lead to more speeding tickets, suspended licences etc.

Another problem is once you've got a felony, it's written in ink (unless it's expunged). I know some states won't allow employers to check background beyond 7 years but...

The alternative is to let these petty drug/crime offenders roam the streets (something tax paying law abiding citizens don't want to live near). I don't know what the fairest way to deal with all of this is, tbh. The way most of us deal with it is earn enough money to live as far away as possible from drug-infested neighborhoods so we're shielded from the realities of it.

Quote:

---

Drug-related crime

In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for state prisoners (19% in 1997).

In 2002 about a quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs, compared to 5% of violent and public order offenders. Among state prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) and drug offenders (26%) more likely to commit their crimes for drug money than violent (10%) and public-order offenders (7%). In federal prisons property offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders (25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses.

---

https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm

We don't have a war on drugs or a war on terror. We have a war on us.

The demand for drugs in this country is insatiable. Now that opioid addiction is deep in the white community it is a "disease.." But opioid addiction is demand created and driven by the pharmaceutical companies. Now heroin is back because it's cheaper and less addictive. End the war on drugs. Drugs won

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not a fan of the drug war either, but the easiest and simplest remedy is to stop using and selling illicit substances -- because it's something everyone has control over. Lowering the highway speed limit to 40 would be both arbitrary and lead to more speeding tickets, suspended licences etc.

---

Theoretically yes, but once a group of people are addicted to a drug this is much easier said than done.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not a fan of the drug war either, but the easiest and simplest remedy is to stop using and selling illicit substances -- because it's something everyone has control over. Lowering the highway speed limit to 40 would be both arbitrary and lead to more speeding tickets, suspended licences etc.

---

Theoretically yes, but once a group of people are addicted to a drug this is much easier said than done.

---

Well I'd say that's pretty obvious.

Have you ever been on a no-sugar diet? That's really hard. After a week or so your body adjusts and you no longer feel like stabbing yourself in the eye. It'd be easy if I never touched sugar to begin with.

Dependency on opiates is really hard to break, but there are resources for those who actually want to stop.

Like I said, I don't really know what the answer is in terms of the government's response to drug abuse and homelessness.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I'm not a fan of the drug war either, but the easiest and simplest remedy is to stop using and selling illicit substances -- because it's something everyone has control over. Lowering the highway speed limit to 40 would be both arbitrary and lead to more speeding tickets, suspended licences etc.

---

Theoretically yes, but once a group of people are addicted to a drug this is much easier said than done.

---

Well I'd say that's pretty obvious.

Have you ever been on a no-sugar diet? That's really hard. After a week or so your body adjusts and you no longer feel like stabbing yourself in the eye. It'd be easy if I never touched sugar to begin with.

Dependency on opiates is really hard to break, but there are resources for those who actually want to stop.

Like I said, I don't really know what the answer is in terms of the government's response to drug abuse and homelessness.

---

Hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) change your brain chemistry in a way that sugar addictions don't. It's an actual physical change, which makes recovery even harder. The more you use it, the more your body keeps jonesing.

I mean, yes, it's possible, but there are reasons why people fail and backslide all the time.

Sugar does alter brain chemistry. More Americans are addicted to sugar than opiates IIRC. The effects aren't as devastating as opiates, arguably.

Sugar is basically poison -- contributing to obesity, disease, death, mood swings -- but its presence in foods is pervasive.

But I think we agree here. Fighting addictions is harder than avoiding substances altogether. Nothing too profound. Opiates are a lot easier to avoid than sugar, btw.