Baby beaten, burned and drugged

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Speaking of gangs...

Apparently this is almost a carbon copy of the 40's and 50's. When I spoke to the some older folk the other day they where saying how there where hoods everywhere back then. Just chilin and shootin n ####...

Interesting first few minutes. Awesome place that LA..

As I said - I wonder how much of what those people tell you related to their daily experience, or simply what they saw on TV, heard on the radio or read in papers...

As for LA - there are certain inner city neighborhoods where gang activity is prevalent. Its not the whole city. Not even close.

By way of a contrast - my wife's parents leave their doors unlocked at night. They live in LA too. In a quiet suburban neighborhood. One of many.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Number 6

[Heracles 417]

As I said comparing countries has absolutely nothing to do with your original point - which was change over time in the same country. Going on about the UK or Australia doesn't prove your original contention - its a total diversion.

Which was that personal security etc has changed, especially in the US, in the last 40 years. Lets make a bet. I am sure if I came up to jersey I would easily find quite a few streets and neighborhoods 'you' would not dare to walk down alone at night. Yet 60 years ago such areas hardly existed.

So do you classify this as change? yes or no.

Lets also make a bet that if we looked at newspapers 60 years ago we would not find a x murdered every single day in the paper or in any police records..

Edited March 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

As I said - I wonder how much of what those people tell you related to their daily experience, or simply what they saw on TV, heard on the radio or read in papers...

As for LA - there are certain inner city neighborhoods where gang activity is prevalent. Its not the whole city. Not even close.

By way of a contrast - my wife's parents leave their doors unlocked at night. They live in LA too. In a quiet suburban neighborhood. One of many.

So I dare them to drive through the back streets of south central LA at night then, if it is so safe or just isolated pockets..

#6 I don't know if you are simply naive or have your head in the sand. Especially coming from the UK where there is not even 1/1,000,000th of the #### that goes on here. London isn't a small city either with over 7,000,000 residents..

Edited March 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I think (and I may be wrong here, so please correct me if I am) that Boo-Yah is arguing from the standpoint that pre-1960s/70s, Western Society generally believed in utilitarianism, whereas today the trend has shifted towards egoism. The major problem with this is that it fails to take into consideration that mankind has always been self-interested in itself. Someone screwing another over to increase their monetary value or status is by no means a new concept, nor is assault, murder, rape, torture and a hundred other terrible things we often associate (for better or worse) with our society today.

I think the main reason we "think" it's more prevalent today is due to the ease of communication. Even going back 20 years ago, technology we take for granted today would've been the stuff of science fiction. Look at the very thing we're discussing on -- an online Internet message board. In the 1980s, you were lucky if you could hook up to a local BBS using your dial-up modem, where your ability to "talk" with others was extremely limited. Other technologies, such as e-mail, was nowhere in sight and if you wanted to know the news, you had to get it from the TV, radio, newspaper or magazines; you couldn't go online to a multitude of websites or blogs to get instant reports and updates.

The point I'm trying to make here (aside from comparing the 1980s and 2000s) is that we're practically bombarded with news and information, whether or not we necessarily want it. So we know about some guy who murdered his entire family and had sex with the neighbor's cat, all dressed up like Woody Woodpecker, while singing "C is for Cookie" almost immediately. We see the worst society has to offer so often in our living rooms now, it's hard to think anything other than "Hey, something in society must really be screwed up!" Well, actually, it's just we're constantly seeing this #######.

Edited March 4, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said - I wonder how much of what those people tell you related to their daily experience, or simply what they saw on TV, heard on the radio or read in papers...

As for LA - there are certain inner city neighborhoods where gang activity is prevalent. Its not the whole city. Not even close.

By way of a contrast - my wife's parents leave their doors unlocked at night. They live in LA too. In a quiet suburban neighborhood. One of many.

So I dare them to drive through the back streets of south central LA at night then, if it is so safe or just isolated pockets..

#6 I don't know if you are simply naive or have your head in the sand. Especially coming from the UK where there is not even 1/1,000,000th of the #### that goes on here. London isn't a small city either with over 7,000,000 residents..

Why would they do that? Let me put it this way for you. They're not exactly unaware that there are parts of "inner city" LA (a distinction you seem incapable of making), which have low unemployment, poor levels of high school graduation and a correspondingly high level of crime (largely related to the drug trade).

That said LA is a massive place - the inner city districts that are like that, are in no ways a reflection upon the entire LA Valley - because the differences between those areas and the rest of the city is pretty large.

I think (and I may be wrong here, so please correct me if I am) that Boo-Yah is arguing from the standpoint that pre-1960s/70s, Western Society generally believed in utilitarianism, whereas today the trend has shifted towards egoism. The major problem with this is that it fails to take into consideration that mankind has always been self-interested in itself. Someone screwing another over to increase their monetary value or status is by no means a new concept, nor is assault, murder, rape, torture and a hundred other terrible things we often associate (for better or worse) with our society today.

I think the main reason we "think" it's more prevalent today is due to the ease of communication. Even going back 20 years ago, technology we take for granted today would've been the stuff of science fiction. Look at the very thing we're discussing on -- an online Internet message board. In the 1980s, you were lucky if you could hook up to a local BBS using your dial-up modem, where your ability to "talk" with others was extremely limited. Other technologies, such as e-mail, was nowhere in sight and if you wanted to know the news, you had to get it from the TV, radio, newspaper or magazines; you couldn't go online to a multitude of websites or blogs to get instant reports and updates.

The point I'm trying to make here (aside from comparing the 1980s and 2000s) is that we're practically bombarded with news and information, whether or not we necessarily want it. So we know about some guy who murdered his entire family and had sex with the neighbor's cat, all dressed up like Woody Woodpecker, while singing "C is for Cookie" almost immediately. We see the worst society has to offer so often in our living rooms now, it's hard to think anything other than "Hey, something in society must really be screwed up!" Well, actually, it's just we're constantly seeing this #######.

Exactly.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Number 6

[jundp 191]

Yep. Good points. Very sad. It is one of the reasons I sometimes stay away from reading the headlines because they get me down. We'll never see a headline about two parents who love their child wonderfully...it's just not newsworthy.

Here you go, Steven: http://gloriastrauss.org/ and http://gloriasangels.org/portal/

This is a colleague of mine. The Seattle Times had the guts to allow one of their reporters to write a weekly piece on the Strauss family, their faith in God, and their struggle with their daughter's battle with cancer. Their newspaper pieces, the media attention in Seattle, and just the little girl herself were catalysts for change in many lives. I saw standing room only in a high school gym for her funeral because the high school kids had been so so affected by the love this family has for each other.

This news story is tragic and terrible and it breaks my heart. But there ARE good and loving people in the world who get media attention. It's not all negative.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said comparing countries has absolutely nothing to do with your original point - which was change over time in the same country. Going on about the UK or Australia doesn't prove your original contention - its a total diversion.

Which was that personal security etc has changed, especially in the US, in the last 40 years. Lets make a bet. I am sure if I came up to jersey I would easily find quite a few streets and neighborhoods 'you' would not dare to walk down alone at night. Yet 60 years ago such areas hardly existed.

So do you classify this as change? yes or no.

Lets also make a bet that if we looked at newspapers 60 years ago we would not find a x murdered every single day in the paper or in any police records..

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm quite open to the fact that society can and does change over time - certainly in terms of movements of populations, and investment in different areas and industries - what I'm questioning is this idea that things now are so much "worse" than before. To put the question another way in concrete terms - quality of life is what we're talking about, presumably when we say "better or worse", do you think people today enjoy a better or worse quality of life than in decades past.

There are standards by which quality of life can be specifically measured - in general or specific terms. I've pointed some of these out to you - unemployment, average household income, disposible income, levels of high-school graduation. Crime is one of those factors, but one which usually touches on the others.

[Heracles 417]

Why would they do that? Let me put it this way for you. They're not exactly unaware that there are parts of "inner city" LA (a distinction you seem incapable of making), which have low unemployment, poor levels of high school graduation and a correspondingly high level of crime (largely related to the drug trade).

Yes because in the 40's and 50's Americans where just super rich and not recovering from an earlier depression and world war. Unlike the poor kids today who have it so tough with free libraries, free lunch, free school, internet access etc. Being poor, unemployed or a lack of education should never be allowed to be used as an excuse to vandalize property or to commit violent crimes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There was no crime in the 1940s or 1950s.

The Mob didn't exist. Race riots didn't happen. Banks were never robbed. Young brunettes could roam the streets of Brooklyn at 2am in peace.

Repeat after me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would they do that? Let me put it this way for you. They're not exactly unaware that there are parts of "inner city" LA (a distinction you seem incapable of making), which have low unemployment, poor levels of high school graduation and a correspondingly high level of crime (largely related to the drug trade).

Yes because in the 40's and 50's Americans where just super rich and not recovering from an earlier depression and world war. Unlike the poor kids today who have it so tough with free libraries, free lunch, free school, internet access etc. Being poor, unemployed or a lack of education should never be allowed to be used as an excuse to vandalize property or to commit violent crimes.

I'm not saying anywhere that its an excuse, and its not the first time you've said that either. I'd sure like to know why you think I believe that - because I really don't.

But thanks for using the war and the depressed economy as an excuse for all the bad stuff that happened between 1930 and 1950

[Heracles 417]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm quite open to the fact that society can and does change over time - certainly in terms of movements of populations, and investment in different areas and industries - what I'm questioning is this idea that things now are so much "worse" than before. To put the question another way in concrete terms - quality of life is what we're talking about, presumably when we say "better or worse", do you think people today enjoy a better or worse quality of life than in decades past.

There are standards by which quality of life can be specifically measured - in general or specific terms. I've pointed some of these out to you - unemployment, average household income, disposible income, levels of high-school graduation. Crime is one of those factors, but one which usually touches on the others.

I understand your point but we are focusing on different issues here. Which is usually the case with us. I am more concerned about the ghettoizing of America since the 60's than somebodies stupid rights or pitifully poor me excuses. I am more concerned about the 17,000 people murdered each yeah than issues like gay marriage rights. I am more concerned about the millions of people and children who are victims of crimes in America than apologizing for slavery. Call it wild tangent. Call it whatever you like. I am more concerned of being embarrassed to drive people from abroad through Jersey than worrying about a year long stupid election. Yet to others in their eyes they obviously see no difference between, for example, SOHO London to east Jersey. This stuff is all interconnected. Crime, poverty aesthetics of a city, ghettos, gangs etc.

Yes Quality of life is what we are talking about. An index which America is rapidly moving down the charts and is ranked much lower than most other developed nations. I am not dissing the nation but trying to bring light to the issues. What I find really puzzling is how someone like yourself, from abroad, actually believes there is no problem here. Where the chance of being killed in London or a victim of crime is 100 times lower than most large cities in the US.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm quite open to the fact that society can and does change over time - certainly in terms of movements of populations, and investment in different areas and industries - what I'm questioning is this idea that things now are so much "worse" than before. To put the question another way in concrete terms - quality of life is what we're talking about, presumably when we say "better or worse", do you think people today enjoy a better or worse quality of life than in decades past.

There are standards by which quality of life can be specifically measured - in general or specific terms. I've pointed some of these out to you - unemployment, average household income, disposible income, levels of high-school graduation. Crime is one of those factors, but one which usually touches on the others.

I understand your point but we are focusing on different issues here. Which is usually the case with us. I am more concerned about the ghettoizing of America since the 60's than somebodies stupid rights or pitifully poor me excuses. I am more concerned about the 17,000 people murdered each yeah than issues like gay marriage rights. I am more concerned about the millions of people and children who are victims of crimes in America than apologizing for slavery. Call it wild tangent. Call it whatever you like. I am more concerned of being embarrassed to drive people from abroad through Jersey than worrying about a year long stupid election. Yet to others in their eyes they obviously see no difference between, for example, SOHO London to east Jersey. This stuff is all interconnected. Crime, poverty aesthetics of a city, ghettos, gangs etc.

Yes Quality of life is what we are talking about. An index which America is rapidly moving down the charts and is ranked much lower than most other developed nations. I am not dissing the nation but trying to bring light to the issues. What I find really puzzling is how someone like yourself, from abroad, actually believes there is no problem here. Where the chance of being killed in London or a victim of crime is 100 times lower than most large cities in the US.

Where did you get the idea that I believe there are no problems? Perhaps you missed what I said about inner city LA.

Strangely, this is as close as you have come to explaining your rationale in a coherent way - but even so I'm not sure why you're so obsessed over "rights" and "gay marriage" but then seemingly use the media (and what other people tell you) as your primary source of evidence for it. Of course it doesn't need to be pointed out that the "gay marriage" debate is something that was nationalised and popularised by the media... That particular debate BTW - took place, largely through the media. It has little bearing on anything else.

So why rely on the media as the sole source of authority on one issue, but not on another?

[Mags 112]

Actually London has a crime rate that is higher than New York.

[Ban Hammer 14,291]

Actually London has a crime rate that is higher than New York.

but london muggers are far more polite.

[Mags 112]

Actually London has a crime rate that is higher than New York.

but london muggers are far more polite.

Absolutely.