Study: Crime rates linked to out-of-wedlock births

Disagreed.

Correlation does not equal causation and it appears the study reflects inaccuracy in their findings.

While Kendall and Tamura found that more out-of-wedlock births are associated with higher subsequent crime rates over the last 45 years, they found just the opposite for years prior to 1965. In the 1940s and 1950s, small increases out-of-wedlock births actually correlated to lower subsequent murder rates.

What explains this? I'd tend to say that wealth is more involved. In the 40's and 50's there were more opportunities due the the side effects of losing so many young men in the wars as well as the rebuilding of infrastructures creating more jobs.

In effect I'd say fewer jobs creates more crime. The statistics agree, but again, correlation does not mean causation.

Skeptic,

I believe that you have most likely nailesd it.

I would only add that those children from the 50s and 60s had access to fully-funded social-services programs -think Head Start and, say, school lunches- that actually benefited from being operated and staffed by idealistic, younger people, and enjoyed the luxury of committed, adequate budgets.

It's not usually my style to acknowledge any positive influence by the media, but, in this case, I have to tip the hat to them for Sesame Street, Electric Company, Schoolhouse Rock, Mr. Rogers and After School Special( not forgetting all the nature/science programs that were in afternoon/weekend timeslots) for providing some positive, engaging, and informative material to be consumed by the millions of kids that were frequently left with a TV as the most consistent presence in their household, besides neglect, at best, and violence, hunger, and poverty, at worst.

Correlation does not equal causation

It does for AGW.
No mention is made of how a missing father figure play in out of wedlock births.
Fathers are generally the ones who teach children limits in the world. Tough love, so to speak. Mothers typically coddle and spoil (like a nanny state). When such children enter a world of law and limits, they don't know how to follow the rules.

"Behind Newark’s epidemic violence are its thousands of fatherless children."
http://www.city-j...sm2.html

All one has to do is look around the world. In countries where abortions are free and legal crime rates are the lowest. And living standards are the highest!

No mention is made of how a missing father figure play in out of wedlock births.

Not all bastard children don't have two parents.

Fathers are generally the ones who teach children limits in the world. Tough love, so to speak. Mothers typically coddle and spoil (like a nanny state).

So your male centric Christian arrogance manifests itself.

When such children enter a world of law and limits, they don't know how to follow the rules.

Have any evidence to this effect or are you simply attempting, rather poorly, to project your views onto the statistics, as the researchers above did?

When you start with a preconceived notion, all data points will seem relevant. When you start with no preconceptions the truth will eventually come to light.

""A family structure index - a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed - is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males." Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are Ther Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23 (1994): 57-81 "
"As the title suggests, Dr. Fagan places blame for crime in America squarely on the shoulders of absentee parents, generally fathers. He suggests that the rate of crime in America can be reduced through the rejuvenation of the family unit and strong, caring communities. In doing so, he attempts to dispel competing theories, namely that poverty causes crime and social programming reduces it."
http://www.psycho...or-crime

commentators pilloried the study as implying that society benefits from abortion.

"pilloried" -- Please --

Approaching half a century under the Kings English, a college graduate, and I'm still diving into the dictionary with every other story on this forum.

"Now, new American research has provided yet more evidence - that marriage is the best preventive measure against crime.

A 70-year study of 500 juvenile offenders born in the Twenties - the longest-running crime study in the world - has found that those who married were far more likely to go straight later in life than those who remained single.
"Marriage, in short, is a crucial factor in getting wild young men to settle down. It provides an antidote to the defeatist view that nothing can be done except pick up the pieces once a crime has been committed.

It used to be accepted that young boys would grow out of crime. What's alarming today is that more and more are not growing out of it but growing into even worse trouble.
"Professor Laub's research is by no means the first evidence that marriage provides a powerful influence on men for the better."
http://www.dailym...-it.html

Many studies from a federal repository local to me, CSU Fullerton, use the term "significant other" when referring to the common element of recovery from income-generating crime, and drug addiction.

My interpretation of the literature was that "significant others" were not always spouses, but the relationship cause a maturing out involving biological processes powerful enough to compete with addition.

but that relationships cause a maturing out due to biological processes powerful enough to compete with addiction.

Will Physorg moderators please allow more edit time to correct errors?

"Now, new American research has provided yet more evidence - that marriage is the best preventive measure against crime.

A 70-year study of 500 juvenile offenders born in the Twenties - the longest-running crime study in the world - has found that those who married were far more likely to go straight later in life than those who remained single.
"Marriage, in short, is a crucial factor in getting wild young men to settle down. It provides an antidote to the defeatist view that nothing can be done except pick up the pieces once a crime has been committed.

It used to be accepted that young boys would grow out of crime. What's alarming today is that more and more are not growing out of it but growing into even worse trouble.
"Professor Laub's research is by no means the first evidence that marriage provides a powerful influence on men for the better."

"Correlation is not Causation."

Nor is it evidence of Cure.

"Now, new American research has provided yet more evidence - that marriage is the best preventive measure against crime.

A 70-year study of 500 juvenile offenders born in the Twenties - the longest-running crime study in the world - has found that those who married were far more likely to go straight later in life than those who remained single.
"Marriage, in short, is a crucial factor in getting wild young men to settle down. It provides an antidote to the defeatist view that nothing can be done except pick up the pieces once a crime has been committed.

It used to be accepted that young boys would grow out of crime. What's alarming today is that more and more are not growing out of it but growing into even worse trouble.
"Professor Laub's research is by no means the first evidence that marriage provides a powerful influence on men for the better."

"Correlation is not Causation."

Nor is it evidence of Cure.

Denying evidence you don't like?

Skeptic is a progressive and a believer in his own beliefs. Evidence to the contrary will not change his mind.

When I take a look around at the kids who get into trouble that I know, the vast majority come from a home without a father.

Not having a father dramatically increases the odds of disfunctional children. This stat has been well know for 20+ years and is only denied by progressives who want their lifestyles promoted.

"Correlation is not Causation."

Nor is it evidence of Cure.

Denying evidence you don't like?

No, mangy- merely stating the obvious, and highlighting your willfull disregard of it.

Why don't you have a look at this, and see if it will open your eyes to the flawed logic of using your Times Online article as support of the Unsupportable:

http://en.wikiped...e-parent

When you start with a preconceived notion, all data points will seem relevant. When you start with no preconceptions the truth will eventually come to light.

Interesting that you should say this, Skeptic. Do you follow your own advice?

Skeptic is a progressive and a believer in his own beliefs.

Everyone believes in their own beliefs. That is kind of how it works.

Evidence to the contrary will not change his mind.

I'm sorry? Did a YEC just say that evidence doesn't change MY mind?

When I take a look around at the kids who get into trouble that I know, the vast majority come from a home without a father.

Anecdotal. No control, not submittable.

Not having a father dramatically increases the odds of disfunctional children.

Ad hominem assertion.

This stat has been well know for 20+ years and is only denied by progressives who want their lifestyles promoted.

No source.

Provide some evidence and I'll change my mind.

Interesting that you should say this, Skeptic. Do you follow your own advice?

Always Kev. Hence why I don't think the Earth is flat, or less than 6000 years old.

@Question:

All one has to do is look around the world. In countries where abortions are free and legal crime rates are the lowest. And living standards are the highest!

If you state it like this it would seem that sacrificing the unborn to the god of money is what leads to prosperity in those societies.

Reminds one of sacrificing one's child in the fire for Molech, the god of money, in order to have a good life - as recorded in the Bible.

@Question:

All one has to do is look around the world. In countries where abortions are free and legal crime rates are the lowest. And living standards are the highest!

If you state it like this it would seem that sacrificing the unborn to the god of money is what leads to prosperity in those societies.

Reminds one of sacrificing one's child in the fire for Molech, the god of money, in order to have a good life - as recorded in the Bible.

Kevinrtrs: We sacrifice the weak, old and unborn all the time. We do it through refusing to raise enough taxes to support their needs. We do it by neglect. And that is just in this country, much of the rest of the world is even more needy. Are you willing to pay more taxes to support the child you would force a woman to have by denying her the freedom of choice? Personally I am not. An abortion has a pay back factor of at least 100 to 1 on average.

Reminds one of sacrificing one's child in the fire for Molech, the god of money, in order to have a good life - as recorded in the Bible.

Kinda like Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to your god as well, eh?

A man hears a voice telling him to kill his son, then at the last minute the voice tells him not to do it and that he passed a test...

Sounds an awful lot like a mentally deranged person having a crisis of conscience. Unfortunately you gents have decided to base a religion on it.

iots actually pretty common sense that marriage has a calming effect on men, they tend to live longer too, unmarried men, such as myself, are taking all kinds of risks in search for some kind of satisfaction

Interesting that you should say this, Skeptic. Do you follow your own advice?

Always Kev. Hence why I don't think the Earth is flat, or less than 6000 years old.

SH: You believe you do. Prove it.

skeptic, anything that doesn't agree with your world view you are skeptical about no matter what proof is against your belief. In other words you are oposite of a skeptic.

Also you love bringing in the bible and taking the bible out of context, just like other progressives.

Abraham was told to kill his son, but God stopped him. If you go deeper into the story it was also a story of trust of a son in his father. How could a man of Abraham's age subdue and tie up a 16 year old? Couldn't unless the son let him. Also the story is a prelude to Christ on the Cross. Furthermore, Abraham had trust in God to provide a lamb (Gen 22 vs 8).

Getting back to the science though, father absent homes is a serious problem. It leads to poverty, and crime, and teenage pregnancy.

skeptic, anything that doesn't agree with your world view you are skeptical about no matter what proof is against your belief. In other words you are oposite of a skeptic.

Again, example please.

Abraham was told to kill his son,

By god

but God stopped him.

Right. Imaginary friend tells you to do something, then it tells you to stop when you're about to do it....

If you go deeper into the story it was also a story of trust of a son in his father.

Wow.

How could a man of Abraham's age subdue and tie up a 16 year old? Couldn't unless the son let him.

"And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him

Also the story is a prelude to Christ on the Cross. Furthermore, Abraham had trust in God to provide a lamb (Gen 22 vs 8).

So who's twisting the text now?

Abraham was told to kill his son, but God stopped him. If you go deeper into the story it was also a story of trust of a son in his father. How could a man of Abraham's age subdue and tie up a 16 year old? Couldn't unless the son let him. Also the story is a prelude to Christ on the Cross. Furthermore, Abraham had trust in God to provide a lamb (Gen 22 vs 8).

This is nothing more than the establishment of the hegemony in Israel of a new god, a god exclusively of and for Israel, that had to be patterned after the preeminent local god of the Hebrews at that time- aka Moloch.

And just as the children of the Hebrews were dedicated to moloch/molech through a "baptism by fire" ceremony- later propagandized as ACTUAL burnt offerings, to establish a claim of moral superiority, the new God of Abraham demanded a similar "sacrifice"- or dedication of the offspring, or "seed", to the new religion of the cult of YHWH. This new god is nothing more than a re-purposing of moloch

Skeptic, proof is here. You believe not having a fathers has no statistical impact on a childs wellbeing. There have been stats and studies showing this is the case for over the last 20 years. (If you want to look it up you can do a google search... I'm too busy right now). BTW Abraham went up the mountain with his son only.

Caliban your lack of knowledge of history, theology and comparitive religion is astounding shallow, but given that you are a progressive not suprising. Moloch is the Antithesis of the Hebrew God. Moloch theology was sacrific (kill) your children so that it will be well with you. The story of Abraham showed that Israel's God did not want the blood of children sacrificed to Him. The theology of Abraham is one of trust, faith, and devotion.

The top paragraph is meant to say, father are important to the wellbeing of children, and children without fathers are statistically more at risk.

The top paragraph is meant to say, father are important to the wellbeing of children, and children without fathers are statistically more at risk.

No-one is denying that a present and caring father(or surrogate) is important for the optimal development of a child. Important, but not an absolute requirement.

The overall finding is that there is some additional risk of criminal behavior in children(more so male) raised in fatherless homes, but it is exaggerated out of all proportion by those who wish to further the agenda of "Focus On the Family/Oathkeeper" -type organizations. This agenda exists to ramp up fear, and to divert attention from implementation of other methods to address the problem, which are NOT supported by these same groups.

The Journal of Law and Economics is an academic journal published by the University of Chicago Press. The Journal is sponsored by the University of Chicago Law School. Nothing that I could find links it at all to Focus on The Family.

Skeptic, proof is here. You believe not having a fathers has no statistical impact on a childs wellbeing.

Care to point out where I said that?
You have a pattern here, it pervades all of your posts, the infamous strawman argument. You don't actually read anything that other people write, do you?

BTW Abraham went up the mountain with his son only.

In which revision? Be specific, there are only about 4000 of them or so. The vast majority of them have Isaic bound before they surmount the mountain. Unfortunately for the Council of Nycea we have copies of those texts, you know, the ones they burned when they decided cannon by raised hand vote.

The theology of Abraham is one of trust, faith, and devotion.

Actually no, no it isn't. It's the diary of an uneducated bronze age desert nomad.

skeptic you said, Correlation does not equal causation and it appears the study reflects inaccuracy in their findings, refering to this study.

Skeptic, your ignorance of how the bible was actually assembled is only surpased by your hatred of the book. Only ignorant people who believe that the Dan Brown's novel the Da Vinci Code is based on fact, or outright liars say the Council of Nycea voted on what was cannon, etc., etc.

But if you want to know history and not look like a foolish progressive, then do some real reseaech instead of relying of a fictional story The DaVinci Code.

@Question:

We sacrifice the weak, old and unborn all the time. We do it through refusing to raise enough taxes to support their needs. We do it by neglect.

Enough taxes are not the problem - the misuse of taxpayers funds is. All over the world. Well-connected dishonest thieves [and sometimes just plain incompetent but well-meaning people] direct funds to their own private causes, to the detriment of those you mention.
It still comes down to not adhering to God's word which clearly states "Do not steal, do not kill[you can throw in here the word harm], do not commit adultery[yes throw in fornication - which is the leading cause of single motherhood], do not lie, do not covet".

If human beings were to do as God commanded, we would not have the kind of problems we have today.

We would still be under the curse of sin and have to work as hard as we do but most other attendant problems would not be there.

Poverty does not have to be the excuse for stealing and killing.

Skeptic, your ignorance of how the bible was actually assembled is only surpased by your hatred of the book.

I don't hate books. I actually think the Bible should be taught in schools, as a literary work, for one cannot understand the majority of the writings of the post-Romanic western world without knowledge of the content within the Bible. Another strawman argument from you.

Only ignorant people who believe that the Dan Brown's novel the Da Vinci Code is based on fact, or outright liars say the Council of Nycea voted on what was cannon, etc., etc.

It's part of the historical record, not a fabrication as you so claim. Crack an encyclopedia, even the Catholic Encyclopedia claims such, and I think they'd know best.

But if you want to know history and not look like a foolish progressive...

Never read the DaVinci code, and from what I recall of the crappy movie the discussion of cannon never was stated within the story.

Skeptic, glad you think the bible has a place at schools.

Skeptic, there is so much documented historical factual descriptions on how the bible was put together that I am surprised that you believe it was put together by a vote. Come on, do some basic research beyond what is taught by progressive teachers. Just do a google seach using the term how the bible was put together.

Skeptic, glad you think the bible has a place at schools.

As a work of literature only. You cannot understand the biblical allegory of a work like Lord of the Flies or even Harry Potter without knowledge of the text within the Bible. This does not mean that the Bible should be taught in any other manner within schools. No prayer, no "judeo-christian value teachings" because they are not the foundations of our society but merely a reinterpretation of prior known works that were the basis of our society.

Skeptic, there is so much documented historical factual descriptions on how the bible was put together that I am surprised that you believe it was put together by a vote.

Which version are you referring to? Would you like me to go over each version? Cannon was developed in order to create the Bible from a large collection of works that were not bound to each other as the Bible is today. Cannon came from Nicaea. Retranslation came later. The KJV is not THE Bibl

but merely a reinterpretation of prior known works that were the basis of our society.

Why does that matter?

Skeptic, I never said anything about the KJV. The KJV is just one english translation of the Bible, even you should know that. With few exceptions the Cannon was already assembled at before Nicaea.

Also, unless you want to re-write history, the USA was founded on Christian principles. But again, to know that you would actually have to study history and not just listen to progressives.

Skeptic, I never said anything about the KJV. The KJV is just one english translation of the Bible, even you should know that. With few exceptions the Cannon was already assembled at before Nicaea.

No, I'm sorry, it was not. The most popular and often preached stories of the Bible were in wide use but they were not a collected work prior to official cannonization. Unless you want to consider the Book of Judas and the Book of Mary as cannon, you may want to recant that statement, or at least provide some evidence to support your stance as I have.

Also, unless you want to re-write history, the USA was founded on Christian principles.

No it wasn't. This is merely a popular lie told throughout the 50's to inspire hatred of the "Godless Communists".

But again, to know that you would actually have to study history and not just listen to progressives.

I'd like you to consider the Adams (John and Sam), Jefferson, and Madison as prime examples. Christian nation we are not

A 70-year study of 500 juvenile offenders born in the Twenties - the longest-running crime study in the world - has found that those who married were far more likely to go straight later in life than those who remained single.

Same evidence can be used to say that marriage is a symptom of maturity, not that maturity is a symptom of marriage.

What you presented is not evidence: it's speculation.

Caliban your lack of knowledge of history, theology and comparitive religion is astounding shallow, but given that you are a progressive not suprising. Moloch is the Antithesis of the Hebrew God. Moloch theology was sacrific (kill) your children so that it will be well with you. The story of Abraham showed that Israel's God did not want the blood of children sacrificed to Him. The theology of Abraham is one of trust, faith, and devotion.

No, what is truly astonishing is that someone suffering from the TOTAL LACK of those same merits has the arrogance to condescend to me regarding them. I won't bother bloodying my knuckles on your other, even more obvious, lacks.

I'll just stick with the Moloch issue: Moloch was the TEMPLATE for your J-C diety, and not the antithesis, as you claim.

Pretty much the entirety of J-C belief is derivative form, and superimposed upon, earlier dieties/mythologies.

CONTD

CONTD

Additionally,thereis no consensus, nor is there any incontrovertible evidence that Moloch worship demanded the actual burnt-offering of children to secure good standing with the deity. On the contrary, and as I already stated, there is every indication that these were ritual "baptism by fire" ceremonies, where the child was dedicated -or inducted- into the faith by being PASSED BETWEEN the flames, in a SYMBOLIC sacrifice. Unlike your hebrew god, that demanded burnt/blood offerings throughout the Old Testament period, and whose demand for the same was only permanently slaked by the sacrifice of the blood of His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which you would know, christianboy, if you actually possessed any of the knowledge and understanding to which you pretend.

Honestly- doesn't the stench of your own hypocrisy choke you?

This is what I mean that the GOLDEN RULE is the only principle necessary to follow in order to live correctly. Your god just breeds the deceit you demonstrate.

Anyone who's actually studied the history of the Abrahmic faiths knows that Moloch or mlk in semetic is the same word used for King. When the Canaanites were conquered it was said "Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and Moloch, the abomination of the Sons of Ammon."

Well who were these two? Most likely they were tribal leaders of the Moabites and Ammonites, both of whom were conquered by the Hebrews. As is Old Semetic tradition, to ensure subjugation of your enemies you are to lay their bodies out before their people, to rot in the sun before burning them to ensure no ability to arise by the hand of demons.

Moloch wasn't considered to be a diety or demon until the Middle ages. Again, a little research might do you some good here, FT.

Funny how today, Moloch is synonomous with another who will demand great sacrifice. Perhaps your God is Moloch, as he demands the sacrifice of reason.

Abortion or forced marriage are pretty blunt weapons against ofspring murder rates.

And neither is going to be a viable subject in the political discourse, where conservative and liberal values are competing with no regard to the actual well being of the individuals (mothers and their children) concerned.

If anyone was concerned with their well being, then it would be obvious that the cases should be assessed individually.

There are actually two things I'm worried about: first, is it really necessary to present the results of this study? I mean, isn't it patently obvious to everyone, as a matter of course?? Second, the American discussion about abortion being either totally good or totally bad, is a Bush-esque notion. It's about as realistic as declaring "thou shalt not kill" as an unconditional universal law. Everyone knows there are cases where killing is "excusable" (for example somebody trying to stab your child while you have him at gunpoint). And the reverse.

A 70-year study of 500 juvenile offenders born in the Twenties - the longest-running crime study in the world - has found that those who married were far more likely to go straight later in life than those who remained single.
"Marriage, in short, is a crucial factor in getting wild young men to settle down. It provides an antidote to the defeatist view that nothing can be done except pick up the pieces once a crime has been committed.

Or it could simply mean that the women were somehow able to sense which guys were going to remain assholes for the rest of their lives. A selection effect can just as reasonably explain this study.

And neither is going to be a viable subject in the political discourse, where conservative and liberal values are competing with no regard to the actual well being of the individuals (mothers and their children) concerned.

The liberal view is "ladies' choice". The conservative view is "you'll do what we tell you to do and like it."

I'm not sure there's anyone on the Liberal side who's pushing a point outside of leave it up to the mother. So the only discourse is between the right to lilfe group pushing their values upon women who would rather make their own informed choice.

Skeptic, you are like all progressives. The truth does not matter only the cause. Conservatives are for equality, protection of the defenseless, and choice and consequences. Most conservatives believe race does not matter only the content of ones character, some like I go even further, and don't believe in race at all. Protection of the defenseless, if we see someone being attacked conservatives will stick up for them, you dont see conservatives rioting in the streets, we believe in following laws. We believe in choice, if you choose to have a kid out of wedlock, if you choose to homeschool your kids, if you break the law then you live with the consequences.
Progressives are the ones full of hate and want to force their values upon all. NAACP, ACORN, Democratic party, Planned Parenthood, New Black Panther party are all progressives, if you are a skeptic, then look up their leaders and their beliefs. If you cant see the hate the control, then you are blind.

Who said I agree with any of those groups?

When you make generalizations, as you do very often, you destroy your own argument.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-planned parenthood, or pro-acorn, or pro-anythingotherthanchoice on this topic.

And as someone who knows that evolution is fact I also know that race and, to an extent, species are simple inventions comming from simple minds.

SH,
Progressives want to control, what we eat, what we drive, where we live, what temperature we keep our home at, what we speak, how we raise our children, what to teach our children, etc. Progressives assign value to a person based on the value that a person brings to society, their color, their beliefs, and a host of other things. Progressives have a habit of mis-stating truths, and project their hatred onto others.

SH, you agree with PP on abortion. You mistate positions of conservatives and christians. You agree that different people have different value.

SH, you agree with PP on abortion. You mistate positions of conservatives and christians. You agree that different people have different value.

So should abortion be legal or illegal according to Christians and conservatives? Seeing as you're speaking for both groups I assume I can use your logic and assume that is the statement of all conservatives and christians.

You state that my viewpoint on abortion is in line with planned parenthood. If planned parenthood believes that abortion is a choice under the discretion of the pregnant woman, then yes, I do agree with them on this question/topic exclusively.

Other than that you're making baseless accusations and trolling. So answer the question and we can discuss, otherwise we're done here, and you can go back to watching Beck and pretending that the concept of race isn't abrahamic faith based.

NAACP, ACORN, Democratic party, Planned Parenthood, New Black Panther party are all progressives, if you are a skeptic, then look up their leaders and their beliefs. If you cant see the hate the control, then you are blind.

And the KKK is conservative. One shouldn't base a populations beliefs in general on those made by a few groups.

And the KKK is conservative. One shouldn't base a populations beliefs in general on those made by a few groups.

Quite right, I've been guilty of this as well in this thread. Not all conservatives are pro-life.

And the KKK is conservative.

Is that sarcasm? If not, Robert Byrd was a 'conservative'?

And the KKK is conservative.

Is that sarcasm? If not, Robert Byrd was a 'conservative'?

And I'm a 'member' of the New Black Panther Party?

And the KKK is conservative.

Is that sarcasm? If not, Robert Byrd was a 'conservative'?

And I'm a 'member' of the New Black Panther Party?

I don't know, are you?
I am questioning the assertion that the KKK is conservative.
Of course this is the problem with terms. Today's 'liberals' are not. What 'progressives' want to make progress towards is more state control of our lives, socialism/communism.

I don't know, are you?
I am questioning the assertion that the KKK is conservative.
Of course this is the problem with terms. Today's 'liberals' are not. What 'progressives' want to make progress towards is more state control of our lives, socialism/communism.

I agree, there is certainly a problem with terminology but I think you have it wrong.

From what I understand Conservatives prefer less change from the status quo, Liberals change things more "liberally".

You can be a progressive conservative or a progressive liberal in this instance.

Now you could also be talking in terms of fiscal measure. Fiscal conservatives prefer to spend less money, while fiscal liberals prefer to spend more.

So which conservative are you speaking to? The KKK would fall into conservative on both sides of the fence. 1) in maintaining the status quo of limited rights for minorities (which we've done away with), and the vast majority of them would identify as fiscally conservative as well.

That is the more literal term for 'conservative'. Those who call themselves conservative want to conserve the Constitution, its limited government power and the inherent rights of individuals. Its all in a couple of short reads, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
What do those who call themselves 'progressive' want to 'progress' to or away from?

That is the more literal term for 'conservative'. Those who call themselves conservative want to conserve the Constitution, its limited government power and the inherent rights of individuals. Its all in a couple of short reads, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
What do those who call themselves 'progressive' want to 'progress' to or away from?

No, mangy, your stripe of conservatism, and moreso than ever before, simply stands for: by whatever means available, and regardless of consequences
-I've got mine, so f**k you. Thereby BP Disaster, Housing Bubble, "Recession".

And, no- it's not some monstrous,octopoid government that is responsible for choking growth- it is the overarching, pervasive, and all-consuming vampiric influence/exploitation of your free market enterprise system that is responsible.

Where regulation does not exist, it is a free-for-all, and where it does exist, it is circumvented or suborned through undue influence.

Those who call themselves conservative want to conserve the Constitution

This doesn't make sense. The Constitution isn't a limited resource, it's a document of law. Are you inferring that Conservatives want to "preserve" the Constitution? If that is the case why do some conservatives (or preservatives in your terms) want to change the Constitution and make laws that limit civil rights and infringe upon personal liberties through religious imperative?

Its all in a couple of short reads, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

So what of the other thousands of pages of law that were erected in the founding years of the country? Are those to be preserved as well?

What do those who call themselves 'progressive' want to 'progress' to or away from?

I can't say. I don't consider myself progressive, although a few other posters here do. As far as I'm aware, the actual definition for a progressive is someone who favors progress towards a quality of life.

Caliban, I talked with a reporter a few years ago who told me a story about the time she was doing a report on abortion. She was at that time fully pro-abortion progressive. She told me that as she rode up on the elevator with those that in favor for abortion she saw how hateful, foul mouthed and disrespectful these people were. Later that same day she then met with pro-lifers, whom she thought would be hateful and spiteful especially since she was pro-abortion. However they were the absolute oposite. They respected her and showed no hate.

This event changed her life and she is now very conservative.

Why am I saying this? When people see your hateful rants, you prove the point that it is progressives that are hateful, mean, out to get everything for themselves. That it is progressives that will lie, cheat, steal to get ahead.

So from a single anecdote with no supporting citation you can divine the attitude and actions of 67% of the American population?

That's about as ignorant as it can get.

SH - Hardcore leftists and progressives are a minority in America. People who identify themselves as conservatives are the majority.

You are ignorant of the facts yet again. Being from Canada, and Living in the Seattle area, I know a lot of, and know a whole lot about progressives and liberals. I cant count the number of times I've heard progressives spout off with their hate and assumed I was one of them.

Caliban, I talked with a reporter a few years ago who told me a story about the time she was doing a report on abortion.

Well, La-di-da, freithinkin'. That's just wonderful! God bless that there reporter lady 'n' her epiphany.

What exactly does this anecdotre have to do with what I said? Huh? Every single one of your posts is diagnostic of your agenda-driven, can't think for yourself, cut 'n' paste attitude toward the threats we face as American citizens- That's right- I said CITIZENS- not consumers. Tellingly, this is yet another distinction that your blindness makes you unable to see.

As far as the numbers of self-identified "conservatives" versus "progressives" I'll bet that even you would have a hard time distinguishing yourself if presented with a poll or survey that reflected actual articulation of your preferences on the issues. "Is the sky blue?" answer yes or no.

Caliban, you must be off your Med's again as your hate is spewing uncontrollably.

Someone I worked with 3 years ago took a survey with me that was designed to show what political spectrum a person was on. From Radical Right to Radical left. He thought he would be middle of the road, I though I would be extreme right. Turned out though he was radical left (like I thought he would be) and much to my surprise I was middle of the road. Not that I take this survey as serious, but it sure was funny to see the results.

As for is the sky blue? If you are a child or simple minded, I would answer the question as yes. But it can be red and a bunch of different colors. A better question would be, why is the sky the color it is?

SH - Hardcore leftists and progressives are a minority in America. People who identify themselves as conservatives are the majority.

You are ignorant of the facts yet again. Being from Canada, and Living in the Seattle area, I know a lot of, and know a whole lot about progressives and liberals. I cant count the number of times I've heard progressives spout off with their hate and assumed I was one of them.

Being from Canadia, you could hardly be expected to know, anyway. As far as all the HATIN' progressives out there- last time I checked, it wasn't progressives bombing clinics, shooting doctors, bombing federal buildings and flying planes into IRS buildings. But I suppose you will claim those maniacs aren't none 'o' your'n.

And, no- it's not some monstrous,octopoid government that is responsible for choking growth- it is the overarching, pervasive, and all-consuming vampiric influence/exploitation of your free market enterprise system that is responsible.

Where regulation does not exist, it is a free-for-all, and where it does exist, it is circumvented or suborned through undue influence.

This is what I'm talking about:

http://www.altern..._with_it

Caliban, you must be off your Med's again as your hate is spewing uncontrollably.

Someone I worked with 3 years ago took a survey with me that was designed to show what political spectrum a person was on. From Radical Right to Radical left. He thought he would be middle of the road, I though I would be extreme right. Turned out though he was radical left (like I thought he would be) and much to my surprise I was middle of the road. Not that I take this survey as serious, but it sure was funny to see the results.

As for is the sky blue? If you are a child or simple minded, I would answer the question as yes. But it can be red and a bunch of different colors. A better question would be, why is the sky the color it is?

No, a better question is why couldn't you answer the question yes or no? For the same reason that you were"surprised" by the results of the "survey" - the question does not allow for a uniquely correct or true answer, only a desired answer. For SPIN.

Caliban, for you I'll answer the question at your level. The sky is blue.

Since I am from Canada, I know about the loss of free speech rights

BTW the person who fly the plane into the building, he hated Bush. Thats why you dont keep hearing about it any more. Do your research!
The Bombers of the federal building, again do your research, your knowledge of the facts and the idological leanings of those involved are more in line with yours than conservatism.

http://www.youtub...BOgPCh9w
How about Rev. Write? How about Black Panthers, you can do the research yourself.
What about G8 riots?

As for the nuts who shoot and bomb abortion clinics, they have support only from nut jobs, they don't have the support from the conservatives. However those that terrorize from the left, no one from the left critices them.

I don't consider myself progressive, although a few other posters here do. As far as I'm aware, the actual definition for a progressive is someone who favors progress towards a quality of life.

If that is your definition, then you are a socialist/liberal/progressive.
The term progressive was used because 'liberal' became unpopular, and as it had not been used since Teddy Roosevelt, it sounds good.

"The USA Today/Gallup poll also finds that self-described "progressives" vary widely in their understanding of the term. While 45% of "progressives" separately identify as "liberal" or "very liberal," a full 32% identify themselves as "moderate," and 22% identify as "conservative" or "very conservative."

For progressives -- the liberal kind -- this confusion may come with a silver lining. As Gallup points out, the word has avoided being "pigeonholed," and the scant opposition it receives from political moderates may indicate that, unlike "liberal," it hasn't become a dirty word. "
http://tpmdc.talk...eans.php

BTW the person who fly the plane into the building, he hated Bush. Thats why you dont keep hearing about it any more. Do your research!
The Bombers of the federal building, again do your research, your knowledge of the facts and the idological leanings of those involved are more in line with yours than conservatism.
As for the nuts who shoot and bomb abortion clinics, they have support only from nut jobs, they don't have the support from the conservatives. However those that terrorize from the left, no one from the left critices them.

Uh huh. No, that's a disappointing response- though not unexpected. Pro-life, no government, no-tax progressives. You can't even keep your "platform" straight. And just in case, the same goes for mangy.

So the 'progressive' platform is racial voter intimidation?
"One way to get there is for Mr. Obama to insist his Justice Department reinstate the Black Panther case or provide a full explanation for why it was dropped. "http://online.wsj...430.html

I don't consider myself progressive, although a few other posters here do. As far as I'm aware, the actual definition for a progressive is someone who favors progress towards a quality of life.

If that is your definition, then you are a socialist/liberal/progressive.
The term progressive was used because 'liberal' became unpopular, and as it had not been used since Teddy Roosevelt, it sounds good.

You're rather ignorant aren't you?

So the 'progressive' platform is racial voter intimidation?
"One way to get there is for Mr. Obama to insist his Justice Department reinstate the Black Panther case or provide a full explanation for why it was dropped. "http://online.wsj...430.html

No, voter intimidation is the tool of morons, regardless of their political affilitations. the NBP should be prosecuted. I'm thoroughly displeased with the Justice department, and Eric Holder on the whole.

I am ignorant of the term 'progressive'? It seems all those who call themselves 'progressive' are quite ignorant as well.
Your definition is not contained in the word and the word is quite ambiguous as noted in the survey.
What do you want to progress to? I want to progress to individual liberty, limited government and respect for private property.

What do you want to progress to? I want to progress to individual liberty, limited government and respect for private property.

mangy- I don't think that you will find a progressive out there who wouldn't agree IN BROAD TERMS. And this is precisely the reason for the ambiguity of ALL GENERALISATIONS, including political ones.

The chief differences between left and right are in regards to what is the proper role and scope of government, and to what extent it should regulate private enterprise.

You lump private enterprise in with the concept of private property. Unfortunately, one cannot consider as exclusively "private property" enterprise which directly affects other people's rights, or the quality of their lives, or the quality of the environment. Especially when it has an effect that is not consented to(much less known).

You cannot effectively "vote with your wallet" -as you would have it -if you are not in possession of all the facts.

I want to progress to individual liberty, limited government and respect for private property.

So you're a progressive.

one cannot consider as exclusively "private property" enterprise which directly affects other people's rights, or the quality of their lives, or the quality of the environment.

Why not?
Private property rights should be directly coupled to private property responsibilities. (Governments tend to decouple this as then they would have to be responsible. The government did that at Love Canal.) Meaning the private property owner is responsible for any injury caused by his property. It doesn't mean non-owners have the right to the benefits of another's property.

Why not?
Private property rights should be directly coupled to private property responsibilities. (Governments tend to decouple this as then they would have to be responsible. The government did that at Love Canal.) Meaning the private property owner is responsible for any injury caused by his property. It doesn't mean non-owners have the right to the benefits of another's property.

Oh, that's right- I forgot, mangy- we'll just leave it up to the authors of harm to fully and justly compensate their victims -with dispatch, and of their own volition. And to be forever vigilant lest they do harm to others.

Even youare not moron enough to believe that that will work out.

we'll just leave it up to the authors of harm to fully and justly compensate their victims -with dispatch,

Like how the government has compensated the victims of Love Canal?
Ever hear of civil suits?
Not long ago a pet food company discovered their Chinese supplier intentionally shipped contaminated products. The Canadian(?) company immediately recalled all products and took steps to compensate pet owners. Why? They wanted to stay in business.
Firestone tires on Ford Expeditions had some problems that killed a few people. The govt did little to investigate and early civil suits were settled out of court with settlements sealed.
How did Tylenol respond to someone contaminating their product?
In a free market, companies will respond swiftly to compensate and make amends IF they want to stay in business.
All that oil that leaked into the gulf is owned by the federal government, the drilling equipment is regulated by the government and the leases are regulated by the government.

What is the federal government going to do justly compensate the victims of their incompetence?
How are they going to compensate all the homeowners and pension plans that lost value due to government failures in properly regulating the economy?
How about the victims of Madoff? The SEC ignored Madoff and allowed him to run his scam.

Not long ago a pet food company discovered their Chinese supplier intentionally shipped contaminated products. The Canadian(?) company immediately recalled all products and took steps to compensate pet owners. Why? They wanted to stay in business.

No, that would be because the FDA told them to recall it. The FDA did the investigation and ordered the recall. http://www.fda.go...9575.htm

Firestone tires on Ford Expeditions had some problems that killed a few people. The govt did little to investigate and early civil suits were settled out of court with settlements sealed.

This issue started in 1990. It wasn't until the NHTSA got involved that Ford and Firestone performed a recall, in 2000.

How did Tylenol respond to someone contaminating their product?

Well it was tylenol who contaminated their own product. It also took them 3 years to address the issue, and another 4 to recall the products AFTER expiration.

the FDA told them to recall it.

FALSE
"Menu Foods Income Fund today announced the precautionary recall of a portion of the dog and cat food it manufactured between December 3, 2006 and March 6, 2007."
"Shortly after receipt of the first complaint, the Fund initiated a substantial battery of technical tests, conducted by both internal and external specialists, but has failed to identify any issues with the products in question. The Fund has, however, discovered that timing of the production associated with these complaints, coincides with the introduction of an ingredient from a new supplier. The Fund stopped using this ingredient shortly after this discovery and production since then has been undertaken using ingredients from another source."
"While the number of complaints has been relatively small, Menu is taking this proactive step out of an abundance of caution, because the health and well-being of pets is paramount to the Fund."
http://www.menufo...s_Recall

More examples of FDA failures:
"

* Home
* > News & Events
* > Newsroom
* > Press Announcements

Section Contents Menu

* Newsroom
* Press Announcements
* 2009
* 2008
* 2007
* 2006
* 2005
* 2004

-
FDA News Release

For Immediate Release: May 6, 2010
Media Inquiries: Michael Herndon 301-796-4673 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 301-796-4673 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Michael.Herndon@fda.hhs.gov
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 888-INFO-FDA end_of_the_skype_highlighting

FDA Supports Freshway Foods Voluntary Recall of Lettuce

Freshway Foods of Sidney, Ohio, announced today a voluntary recall of certain romaine lettuce products because of the possible connection between the recalled romaine lettuce and an outbreak of foodborne disease. FDA supports this action by Freshway Foods. "http://www.fda.go...1145.htm

"If a federal agency detects a problem, this means that it needs more resources and regulatory powers to reward its good behavior and enhance its expertise further. If the agency’s gross incompetence is shown, however, that means that it needs more resources and regulatory powers to remedy the situation."
"Firestone brand is dead in the water, Bridgestone stockholders have lost half their investment and are now screaming for the heads of their company’s managers; Michelin and Goodyear are filling newspapers with ads demonstrating the safety of their products. "
http://www.indepe...p?id=381

Ford spotted the problem in 92 and issued the first TSB for..... the rear stabilizer shock assembly.

Very similar to how Toyota knew of the unintended acceleration and remedied the situation through.... new floor mats.

These are what are classified as "free market fixes". It doesn't really fix anything, it just allows for the profit to continue rolling in until the company is sued again. Corporations allow for no one to have responsibility, yet you state you're a proponent of individualism... why would you ever want a free market where individual responsibility is non-existant?

"
The Tylenol Crisis:

How Effective Public Relations Saved Johnson & Johnson."
" Authorities determined that each of the people that died, had ingested an Extra-Strength Tylenol capsule laced with cyanide. The news of this incident traveled quickly and was the cause of a massive, nationwide panic. These poisonings made it necessary for Johnson & Johnson to launch a public relations program immediately, in order to save the integrity of both their product and their corporation as a whole. "
http://www.aerobi...sis.html

"an email to William Duckwitz at NHTSA from State Farm Associate Research Administrator Samuel Boyden, Boyden advises NHTSA of 21 Firestone ATX P235/75R15 tire failures causing injuries. Fourteen cases were in 1991-1995 Ford Explorers. The problem was dismissed as "unremarkable" by NHTSA."
http://www.citize...?ID=5336
Here we have a private company State Farm Insurance, that has a financial interest in the matter attempting to get the attention of the government agency responsible. They are ignored.
Auto companies pay more attention to an independent test lab, IIHS, http://www.iihs.org, than they do to US gov crash test requirements. IIHS is funded by insurance companies that pay the claims.
Underwriters Lab, UL, was started by insurance companies to make the then new electrical appliances safe in the home and not cause fires.

The reason for that is because the IIHS satisfies the need for expert testimony. It is a defense manuver, not a willing participation.

Corporations allow for no one to have responsibility, yet you state you're a proponent of individualism... why would you ever want a free market where individual responsibility is non-existent?

I just pointed out that companies like Menu Foods and J&J initiated extraordinary efforts to satisfy their customers to stay in business. Government agencies played 'catch-up' because they have do not have the same incentives, survival. Government agencies beg for more money when they fail.
The jury is still out on Toyota: "Driver error found in some Toyota acceleration cases" http://www.usatod...ST_N.htm

The reason for that is because the IIHS satisfies the need for expert testimony. It is a defense manuver, not a willing participation.

Some car makers use IIHS data to redesign their products to pass their tests.
A free market, independent test lab is used to verify product design and safety using standards more strict than the government. You don't support that?

A free market, independent test lab is used to verify product design and safety using standards more strict than the government. You don't support that?

If it were true I'd support it, however, it is not.

A free market, independent test lab is used to verify product design and safety using standards more strict than the government. You don't support that?

If it were true I'd support it, however, it is not.

What is not true?

Being from Canadia, you could hardly be expected to know, anyway.

Be less hypocritical about people making generalizations

Being from Canadia, you could hardly be expected to know, anyway.

Be less hypocritical about people making generalizations

Big difference between Sarcasm and hypocrisy. Dig it.