Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    Gee, no wonder we're proud.
    
    D.

    hmm,
    
    not sure if I agree that the rate of crime increased because of a
    decrease in police officers...seems to be the police themselves are
    increasing the rate...
    
    IMHO, of course.
    

>    	The rape rate in the United States was eight times higher than in
>    France, 15 times higher than in England, 23 times higher than Italy's and
>    26 times higher than in Japan, according to the report.
>    	Robbery rates followed much the same pattern; six times higher than in
>    England, seven times higher than Italy's - and nearly 150 time higher than
>    in Japan.

Is that total numbers, or percentages of population?

D!
   

    .0 is the complete text.
    
    When typing and reading it, I was sure that it was rate(per capita)
    rather than absolute number.
    
    Indeed, if the figures were numbers rather than (per capita) rates then
    the figures would make Northern Ireland, and Italy much more violent
    per capita (for murder e.g.) because the U.S is so much bigger than
    either of them. At least I think U.S. is rather more that 4 times
    larger in population than Italy.

    	Saturday night, a sniper in Nashua, NH, shot two people
    	in town. The alleged sniper, 17, is in custody.
    
    	My wife (an I.V. nurse at St. Joe's in Nashua), mentioned
    	that one victim was the son of a doctor who works at
    	St. Joe's. He's in critical condition and not doing well
    	at all. The sniper shot him in the head.
    
    	Scott

    
    Well you know, violence *sells* in this country...where would our media
    be without it?
    
    D.

    re .7,
    
    A few reasons come to my mind as to why:
    
    0. The education system.
    1. Inefficient government.
    2. The Second Amendment.
    
    The real question is:  What are we going to do about it?
    
    Eugene
                                                            

    A few more to throw in the grab bad?
    
    o cultural and ethnic diversity
    o a very solutions oriented mindset
    o economic inequality coupled with constitutional equality
    o a mind set that says if you don't like the way things are you can
      either change them or go somewhere else (left over frontiersness?)

    I'm curious to know how you folks think we can decrease the violence in
    our society.  Any ideas?
    
    I personally think a large part of the problem is that violence breeds
    violence.  Children exposed to violence grow up to become both victim
    and offender.  As society becomes more violent more and more children
    become exposed to it at an early age.  How can we break the cycle?
    I really don't know.
    
    Mary

    
    the solution to that is EASY
    
    either ban all guns and bullets
          or
    build more jails, have 'punishment' both CERTAIN, QUICK,& PROLONGED
    
    
    
    mmmmmm, but WHICH one. can't quite remember    

    re .10,
    
    Mary, to tell ya the truth, I haven't got a clue.  Well, actually it is
    very easy to fix specific problems if one doesn't care about all the
    other larger ramifications.  I ain't gonna take a position on gun
    control other than stating the fact that a total ban on guns will
    reduce the murder rate.
    
    Eugene

    Herb,
    
    I think that guns play a role in only a small part of the violence.
    Violence happens much more frequently with an improvised weapon (any
    handy object), a fist or just words.  Restricting the availability of
    guns could reduce the severity of the consequences of violence which is
    certainly desireable, but it tackles only a small part of the problem.
    
    On your second point, fear of punishment, is certainly a deterrent, but
    how many parents are punished for being violent to their children or
    in front of their children?  And punishment itself is sometimes an act of
    violence which breeds more violence?  How many parents have punished
    their child for hitting another child by spanking them?
    
    Incarceration can be helpful for keeping violent people isolated from
    society, but it doesn't make violent people non-violent.  What we need
    is a social structure which produces fewer violent people.  And that
    has to begin at the source, with children.  How can we reduce the
    exposure of children to violence?  That is, prevent the problem at its
    source.
    
    Mary

    re: .12
    
    Eugene, I haven't got a clue, either.  And that feels so frustrating.
    Our nation seems so big and powerful and respected, but in reality it
    is very sick.  I want to help heal it and I feel so helpless.
    
    Mary

    Mary don't feet too bad, and it really ain't too bad.  Think of it as a
    price we pay for the good stuff we have.  As someone pointed out,
    culture and ethnic diversity may have contributed to the crime rate,
    but is ethnic diversity a good thing?  I would say that it is.  Our
    school system flunk out more kids than perhaps most of the other
    industrial nations, but our brand of education also created most of the
    Nobel prize winners in the world, and we have the best university
    system in the world.  Another example is immigration policy.  We are
    relatively open compare to other industrial nations, and immigration
    causes all sorts of problems (just last night there was a program on
    the new Russian Marfia), but hey it also brought in very productive
    guys like me and make this country more competitive and make the
    culture richer.  It is like choosing which computer to buy with the
    amount of money available.  With $300,000 you can buy a VAXft3100 and
    it will be very reliable and never crashes, but it is kinda slow, but
    few bad things can happen to the machine that will cause it to crash.  
    Or we can buy a VAX6000 with a vector processor.  Now, this machine will
    crash more often, but it will get more things done.  U.S. chose the
    VAX6000 with a vector process, and I like it.  Most of my applications
    are computationally intensive, and VAXft3100 just doesn't cut it.  That
    is why I chose to come here.
    
    Eugene
    

    Mary
    
    maybe we need a new religion, with a messiah that preaches
    peace and love of your neighbor..
    
    but it's been done before, and I don't think it 'took'.
    
    
    Bonnie

    re .16,
    
    Well Bonnie, it has been tried before many times, and you are right
    it didn't really do much good.  With the exception of a few countries 
    (such as Iran), Americans are probably the most religous people in the 
    world.  We are definitely more religious than Japan which,
    according to the statistics of .0, has the lowest crime rate.
    
    Come to think of it, most of the ideas have been tried many times.  As
    a matter of fact, the fundamental ideas of societal structure and
    civilization came out during the golden era of Greece in the
    west and the "era of a hundred schools" in China (all within about a
    hundred years).  I don't know much about the Indian culture.  It may
    have had similar ideas.  There really hasn't been any original 
    "new ideas" since then.  And I suspect the reason being that we haven't 
    really changed much during all those years, only become more "civilized".
    
    Eugene

    re.13 , .11
    
    I was being sarcastic, sorry it wasn't clear.
    
    
    				herb
    

    I agree with Eugene, that the violence is the price we pay for the
    beneficial aspects in our society.  Like any price, we'd rather pay
    less, and I think crime reduction is VERY important.  But it does seem
    to be an inherent aspect of our society in the latter half of the
    twentieth century.  
    
    What changes have happened here since 1950?  A more diverse population. 
    Greater economic disparity.  More mobility.  Increase in divorce. 
    Breaking up of the extended family.  Increased individualism.  More
    violence on tv.  A tv in every household.  TV promotion of hedonism and
    heavy materialistic consumption, as well as the idea of status
    determined by what we own, drink, or drive, or how we look.  Kids
    watching too many tv hours.  Lower educational standards.  Reduced
    parent participation in the schools.  Overloaded court system and jails
    resulting in plea-bargaining and reduced sentences.  Less shame
    attached to criminality.  Persistence of racial inequality. 
    Deteriorating conditions in the inner city.  A growing lower class. 
    Increased alcoholism and children born damaged from alcohol or drugs.
    Kids growing up much younger.  Little government support for parents.
    Kids increasingly left unsupervised and with no moral standards.
    
    This has turned into a litany of downers  I also believe there are
    great opportunities here in the USA.  Our immigration has not abated. 
    Our liberty is unparalleled - for both self-improvement and
    self-destruction.  Take your pick.     
    
    Laura
    
    

    
    
    Why is this nation so violent?  Because the folks who commit the
    violence are allowed to get away with it.  
    
    If there were a punishment that really was effective I feel there
    would be less violence.  Also though it would really take a change
    in societies attitudes.  No longer can we afford to look the other
    way.  The folks who are hired to stop the violence (police) can't
    seem to do anything major to stop it.  In fact, some of them are the
    causes of it.  We as a society has to say enough.  
    
    
    The problem as I see it really lies in the responsibility area.  The
    violent people are allowed to not take responsibility for thier
    actions.  The people who sell violence (media) are allowed to do so
    without a thought to how thier messages will be received.  The court
    systems are grossly inadequate.  The buck just keeps getting passed
    along.  No one wants to take the responsibility.
    
    
    I don't think it is a price we should have to pay for the beneficial
    aspects of our society.  Nor do I agree with the statement.  There is
    no need for violence anywhere.  IMO violence begets violence.
    
    What can be done?  Why don't we each start with ourselves.  Take a 
    good look at how you act each day.  Are there times when you maybe
    raise your voice in anger or frustration?  Do you not consider that
    to be a violent act?  Are there times when you maybe are in a hurry
    to get somewhere and you inadvertantly bump into somone?  Sure it
    was a mistake, and most folks would appologize, but do you always?
    Isn't that a form of violence.  
    
    Violence has to be broken down into it's littlest components.  The
    majority of folks in the US are not what I would consider purposely
    violent people, but the respect for others has fallen by the wayside.
    If the next time you get upset and want to verbalize it instead you
    turn that negative energy around, wont that help overall?  I guess
    what I am trying to say is that change has to start with the little
    things folks do in their every day living.  If you have a tendancy
    to pat your kids behind, try something else and see what happens.
    If you have a tendancy to act out your negative energy while you
    are in your car (swearing, reckless driving, etc) count to ten before
    you act out.
    
    
    Michele

    
    Did you all know that the US already has the highest incarceration
    rate in the world, and we surpass any other country in the world
    by quite a bit?
    
    I was shocked to learn this.  I'll try to get the figures I saw
    from home.
    
    This suggests to me that simplistic solutions such as "build more jails",
    "send more violent criminals to jail", etc. aren't going to do very
    much to solve the crime problems.
    

    It's a typical American attitude that violence is justified if you
    think you've been harmed in any way.  From vandalism to highway duels
    to domestic violence to gang wars to bashings to rape, the belief that
    the victim somehow "deserves it" is fundamental.  The typical American
    desire to increase the severity of punishment seems more of a symptom
    than a solution. 
    
    Ray

    re: .21
    
    I saw that article in the Boston Globe about incarceration.  I think it
    said the U.S. led with about 465 per 100,000 followed by USSR with
    three hundred and something.  Northern Ireland was about 120 and the UK
    and Japan were near 100.  The figures are from memory. (Aside: I
    thought Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but they were listed
    separate)  Surprisingly we also surpass South Africa.
    
    Mary

    I think any statement which is of the form "America is so violent
    because x" is guaranteed to be wrong.  Cultural problems are not so
    simple!  The problem of violence in America isn't because "guns should
    be outlawed."  Or "there aren't enough jails".  Or "there is too
    much violence in the media".  And any solution of the form "all we have
    to do to fix it is y" is also guaranteed to be wrong.  No bandaid
    solution such as "building more jails", "outlawing guns", "outlawing
    violence in the media" or "teach our children not to be violent" is
    enough.
    
    Violence is deeply imbedded in our culture.  it is in our media, our
    day to day interactions, our very psyches.
    
    D!

    >Violence is deeply imbedded in our culture.  it is in our media, our
    >day to day interactions, our very psyches.
    
    I agree with you, that its a very deep problem that has no simple
    solution.  And I tend to believe that there is no "quick fix" any
    improvement would take place only slowly over many years.  But is
    there *no* solution?  Some folks say "well that's the price you pay"
    which almost indicates that it is acceptable and there is nothing
    to be done about it.
    
    I don't know, I have a feeling that if we put more emphasis on
    domestic violence as a crime, things might change.  In our culture
    there is a common attitude that beating the wife and kids is "normal".
    A man who rapes his wife or beats his children is much more likely
    to go unpunished than a man who rapes a stranger or beats up someone
    on the street.
    
    I think the way that violence gets into our psyches is by exposure to
    it.  Doing things that decrease exposure to violence should help.
    
    Mary

    I don't think more severe punishment is going to get rid of violence,
    in fact, I feel it simply perpetuates more.  
    
    If you hit a child for doing something "bad," then that kid will
    probably either make sure he doesn't get caught again, or hit someone
    else harder.  
    
    IMHO, we have to 'teach our children well.'  Teach them to love first
    of all, teach them to empathize with all living things, teach them
    to love themselves, so they would stop 'punishing themselves' everytime
    they attack someone else...
    
    m.
    

    re .25,
    
    Mary, I submit to you that VAX6000 is a good bargain.  Also "fixes"
    come with a price as it cost a lot of money to upgrate to add another
    CPU to the existing VAX6000, and here is the catch, it doesn't
    necessarily mean you get a better over all system.
    ...
    
    re general...
    
    Aside from somehow magically transforming the human nature, the only
    "fixes" you can have is to use the instrument of government, and that
    usually means more taxes or surrendering some of our individual
    liberty.  For example, there is too much violence on TV.  Quick fix?
    Sure, let's set up an agency to review the TV programs before they are
    air.  But do we want that?  You may ask why can't we make the TV station
    more responsible?  Well, you are trying to change human nature again. 
    Asking TV stations to be responsible is like asking politicians to be
    honest...       Too much domestic violence.  Quick fix? 
    Sure, let's have the government set up a video camera at every home...
    But do we want that?  In general, I am sure there will be a lot less
    violence, if we simply throw out the Bill of Rights, but I will
    probably move to Canada if that ever happens.
    
    Also, make sure that you don't use the instrument of government to 
    transform "human nature".  That has been tried before, and all hell 
    broke loose.
    
    You may think I am such a downer, but that ain't true.  I am very
    upbeat and I think this is a wonderful country.  It has its problems
    and faults, but at least the founding fathers of this country
    understood the simple truth that a society made up of imperfect people
    will be imperfect.  They knew that whatever they did would be a choice
    between two imperfect outcomes.  In general, their preferences have been
    individual liberty over "societal good", and I think that is a good
    idea in general.  
    
    And they did understand that it is an absolute no-no to try to change 
    human nature with the instrument of government (as some latter day 
    loonies like Lenin or Stalin or Mao tried).
    
    Eugene
                          

    I wrote .27 from a system analyst's point of view.  At the personal
    level, I do think there are a lot one can do as an individual. 
    One, can for example, become a big brother or big sister to some inner
    city kid.  Or one can donate to charities.  And the list goes on.  As
    to how much effects they will have on the society, only God knows.  As
    a matter of fact, Americans are the most generous people in the world. 
    We donate more money per capita to charities than anyone else in the world.
    
    Even there, it becomes a matter of deciding what is the best choice. 
    For example, suppose we have a brilliant computer nerd who doesn't know
    how to deal with kids.  Now suppose that fellow decide to become a
    do-gooder.  The question is should he or she spent 10 hours a week with
    an inner city kid or should that fellow simply work that extra 10 hours
    at digital and donate whatever he makes there to some inner city youth
    program?                                                      
    
    Eugene

    From the USENET. The numbers on rape are particularly interesting.
    For myself I believe that crime in the US would be much worse if
    we had more gun control. When Florida made it easier for women to get
    guns the rape rate dropped through the floor for example.
    
    ~Cliff
    
Article        11388
From: pkr@ronco.wpd.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: RKBA.016 - Is the United States the most violent nation?
Date: 22 Mar 91 07:08:10 GMT
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Organization: Cold War Victory Parade Float Construction Company
 
RKBA.016 - Is the United States the most violent nation?
           Version 1.1 (last changed on 91/03/21 at 23:05:58)
 
 
DESCRIPTION
===========
A spate of media "claims" implying that the United States is the highest crime
nation in the world has been observed in the media recently. However, if we
were to look at homicide, rape, and larceny (burgalry, robbery, etc.) we find
a quite different story.
 
In homicide, the US is number 11, with a murder rate of 9.60 per 100,000.
The nearest European country in the Netherlands, with a homicide rate of
7.15 per 100,000. However, elimination of high crime inner city rates
pushes the per capita down to 3.77, below such countries as Luxemburg
(5.25), Finland (4.88), West Germany (4.47), Scotland (3.82), and somewhat
barely above Sweden (3.36).
 
Places such as Norway are not known to have massive illegal aliens, drug
misuse problems, or large cultural inhomogeneities.
 
Of even more interest is the TREMENDOUSLY larger per capita rape numbers
in the "non-violent peace loving" European counties. The Unites States at 26.30
is below such countries as Australia (90.82), West Germany (77.49), New Zealand
(65.73), Netherlands (56.00), Scotland (44.69), Denmark (41.06), Sweden
(40.52), Austria (30.42).
 
In the category of larceny (robbery, burglary etc.), the United States is
below Italy and New Zealand, and somewhat above Denmark, West Germany,
Scotland, Sweden, Austria, and England & Wales.
 
 
CONCLUSION
==========
The United States is NOT the most violent country in the world. While high
in homicide, there are several European nations that have similar per
capita homicide rates, without the presence of large scale drug problems
or immigrant & illegal alien situations.
 
In terms of rape, the US lags TREMENDOUSLY behind some of the "civilized"
and "non-violent" European countries.
 
In larceny (burglary, robbery), the US is again not a leader.
 
In short, given all the problems that the US has that European countries do
NOT have, the US is surprisingly non-violent (relatively speaking).
 
 
 
 
                 H O M I C I D E
                                  PER         ABSOLUTE
RANK  COUNTRY                     100,000     NUMBERS
====  ==========================  =======     ========
 01   Lesotho                     140.81       1,592
 02   Bahamas                      22.88          45
 03   Guyana                       22.21         610
 05   Netherlands Antilles         12.47          29
 06   Iraq                         11.94       1,243
 07   Sri Lanka                    11.92       1,597
 08   Cyprus                       11.11          71
 09   Trinidad & Tobago            10.41         113
 10   Jamaica                      10.25         205
 11   United States                 9.60      18,155
 12   Kuwait                        9.18          78
 13   Tanzania                      8.98       1,295
 14   Kenya                         8.66       1,047
 15   Madagascar                    8.14         692
 16   Burma                         8.06       2,304
 17   Venezuela                     7.19         834
 18   Netherlands                   7.15         964
 19   Chile                         6.69         723
 20   St.Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla       6.67           4
 21   Jordan                        6.06         103
 22   Syria                         5.52         331
 23   Luxembourg                    5.25          21
 24   Mali                          5.02         251
 25   Finland                       4.88         229
 26   Malawi                        4.57         183
 27   West Germany                  4.47       2,771
 28   Monaco                        4.40           1
 29   Sierra Leone                  4.00         120
 30   Sconand                       3.82         199
 31   Libya                         3.77          85
 32   Egypt                         3.45       1,241
 33   India                         3.40      19,480
 34   Sweden                        3.36         275
 35   Austria                       3.06         229
 36   Italy                         2.95       1,643
 37   Singapore                     2.77          62
 38   Nigeria                       2.75       1,510
 39   Australia & Papua New Guinea  2.73         411
 40   France                        2.70       1,429
 41   Philippines                   2.68       1,106
 42   Hong Kong                     2.59         110
 43   Malaysia                      2.49         298
 44   Peru                          2.44         376
 45   England & Wales               2.24       1,102
 46   Denmark                       2.03         102
 47   Japan                         1.74       1,912
 48   New Zealand                   1.51          46
 49   South Korea                   1.33         460
 50   Zaire                         1.19         286
 51   Molocco                       1.11         199
 52   Ivory Coast                   1.09          63
 53   Solomon Islands               1.08           2
 54   Greece                        0.87          77
 55   Indonesia                     0.87       1,120
 56   Uganda                        0.83          83
 57   Fiji                          0.71           4
 58   Spain                         0.67         233
 59   Norway                        0.50          20
 
 
------------------------  R A P E  -----------------
                                PER         ABSOLUTE
RANK  COUNTRY                   100,000     NUMBERS
====  ========================  =======     ========
   1  Australia                 90.82       13,674
   2  West Germany              77.49       48,075
   3  Solomon Islands           76.96          142
   4  Venezuela                 66.84        7,754
   5  New Zealand               65.73        2,000
   6  Bahamas                   62.02          122
   7  Libya                     56.58        1,277
   8  Netherlands               56.00        7,554
   9  England & Wales           50.20       24,698
  10  Lesotho                   49.53          560
  11  Kuwait                    48.35          411
  12  Netherlands Antilles      46.96          109
  13  Scotland                  44.69        2,330
  14  Denmark                   41.06        2,068
  15  Sweden                    40.52        3,313
  16  Guyana                    34.50          264
  17  Hong Kong                 32.97        1,401
  18  Austria                   30.42        2,274
  19  Peru                      29.14        4,482
  20  St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla  26.67           16
  21  Monaco                    26.41            6
  22  United States             26.30       40,168
  23  France                    26.19       13,828
  24  Fiji                      26.07          147
  25  Lebanon                   25.93          778
  26  Trinidad & Tobago         25.23          274
  27  Jamaica                   24.95          499
  28  Norway                    23.43          931
  23  Chile                     22.51        2,362
  30  Uganda                    16.48        1,648
  31  South Korea               13.90        4,854
  32  Morocco                   12.69        2,284
  33  Spain                     12.21        4,310
  34  Italy                     11.87        6,605
  35  Malawi                    11.45          458
  36  Tanzania                  10.31        1,487
  37  Japan                     10.30       11,338
  38  Kenya                      9.76        1,180
  39  Finland                    9.44          443
  40  Luxembourg                 9.25           37
  41  Jordan                     7.71          131
  42  Sierra Leone               7.47          224
  43  Zaire                      5.85        1,404
  44  Mali                       5.60          280
  45  Malaysia                   4.72          564
  46  Burma                      3.79        1,085
  47  Singapore                  3.67           82
  48  Iraq                       3.65          380
  49  Madagascar                 3.25          276
  50  Nigeria                    2 60        1,428
  51  Greece                     2.31          203
  52  Sri Lanka                  1.53          205
  53  Philippines                1.08          447
  54  Indonesia                  0.90        1,162
  55  Cyprus                     0.63           40
  56  Syria                      0.52           31
  57  India                      0.51        2,919
  58  Egypt                      0.34          122
  59  Ivory Coast                0.17           10
 
Sources: BWR84
 
-end-
--
Philip K. Ronzone                  S e c u r e   U N I X           pkr@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc. MS 9U-500                           work (415) 335-1511
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94039            fax (415) 969-2314
.......................................You can't arm a bear with nuclear hugs!

    the numbers in .0 came from the U.S. Senate.
    Where did the numbers in .30 come from?
    Can you tell us something about the characteristics of the people
    involved in the following sequence...
    (that is to say)
    what does From: pkr@ronco.wpd.sgi.com mean
    what does Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns.ca.politics.ba.politics mean
    What is RKBA.016
    who is newes@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net news) 
    who is Organization: Cold War Victory Parade Float Construction Company
    
    				herb

    Even if we assume that the report in .0 uses totals rather than per
    capita rates for scaremongering purposes, there's something screwy
    here.  The "ABSOLUTE NUMBERS" for rape in the table supplied by the guy
    who won the Cold War show 25,000 in England and 40,000 in the USA. 
    That hardly matches the 1-to-15 ratio claimed earlier.
    
    Neither the newspaper story nor the USENET posting looks particularly
    authoritative, but of the two, the former has more at stake in getting
    its facts right.
    
    Ray

        re .31,
        
>>    what does From: pkr@ronco.wpd.sgi.com mean
        
        The person who entered that article has the internet
        network address pkr@ronco.wpd.sgi.com.  For comparison,
        you could be reached at nichols@vmssg.enet.dec.com. The
        "pkr" is the author's username, likely his or her
        initials.  The ".com" means "commercial", as in a
        commercial institution or company, as opposed to ".edu"
        or ".mil" (educational or military) [there are other
        codes for that last field, too].  ".sgi.com" like
        ".dec.com" indicates which company.  I don't know how that
        company would route "ronco.wpd" internally, but I
        wouldn't be surprised if "ronco" was a node name.
        
>>    what does Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns.ca.politics.ba.politics mean
	
        That was "talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics"
        with commas.  It means the usenet newsgroups named
        talk.politics.guns, ca.politics, and ba.politics.  The
        second might be California politics, the third might be
        Bay Area politics.
        
>>    What is RKBA.016
        
        RKBA would be The Right to Keep and Bear Arms; the .016
        looks like an edition or issue number of a paper or
        electronic puplication.
        
>>    who is newes@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net news) 
        
        Network address as described above.  The part in
        parentheses is like an electronic mail personal name.  In
        this case it looks like an account without a real user,
        set up as part of the implementation of the software that
        posts to usenet.
        
>>    who is Organization: Cold War Victory Parade Float Construction Company
	
        Never heard of it; it might be made up, I believe the
        person entering the article can put anything in that
        field.
        
        Dan
        

    q.e.d.

	I put the blame for violence on two items in particular,
	TV and the automobile. TV tends to keep folks home. When you
	are watching TV, you are generally not interacting with others.
	When folks do go out, encapsulization in an automobile keeps
	the isolation from the rest of the community intact. So these two
	things keep folks in a community from interacting very much.

	I think its a lot easier to be violent when you have little
	sense of attachment to the community. Also, I think that it is
	easier to be violent to folks you don't know (domestic violence
	notwithstanding).

	What to do about it is problematical though...

					Tom_K

The usenet article in its entirety(the one posted seems to have been shortened
somewhat[for posting brevity?]) showed the sources as the FBI Uniform Crime
Report and the US justice dept and Interpol(as I remember). The numbers from
the US senate were/are skewed. The news media is rarely known for being
concerned with facts. Senator Biden has shown a real propensity for ignoring
facts in other areas the judicial commitee is responsible for.

Without getting into long postings, please go to your public library the
FBI UCR is availabe there as are other similar gov't documents. look it all
up for yourselves.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN that I condone the violence or attacks on women, I am 
trying to point out the errors in the report.

As Cliff(?) said there are documented cases where when people were allowed to
defend themselves/buy or own guns the crime rates dropped; Orlando, Kenesaw,
Albuquerque. Where guns are Outlawed (washington, new york) the rate of crime
skyrockets.

Amos

    I think you owe this audience the honesty of identifying yourself as a
    member of the NRA (i believe that is accurate)
    
    

        Oh?  And what groups are you a member of?
        
        Dan

    none
    

>       <<< Note 745.37 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>
>                                  -< re .-1 >-

>    I think you owe this audience the honesty of identifying yourself as a
>    member of the NRA (i believe that is accurate)
    
 Could you explain what that has to do with trying to clarify the facts in
a note?

But just so there is no question;
I am a certified instructor in Rifle, Pistol, firearms-safety, personal
protection. (all NRA certification) I am a member of GOAL, CCRKBA, the 
Republican party, the Congregational church, the Boy Scouts of America,
The DCU, two different gun clubs, The PTA, National geographic society
and some others I probably can't think of. Now again what difference does that 
make to factual presentation? or asking people to look in the FBI UCR 
statistics for the real numbers?

Amos   

    I believe that at best you are trying to clarify only those facts that
    support what I understand to be the principal goal of the NRA. 
    And that is...
    I believe that the PRINCIPAL agenda the NRA has is to do everything
    possible within the law (including what I would characterize as legal
    bribery -lobbying-) to prevent the passage of ANY and ALL laws that
    infringe on their concept of the right to bear arms.
    I believe that knowing you are a member of the NRA is going to cause
    people to think differently about what you have to say concerning
    weapons. I think that is important.
    Just as I believe that knowing somebody is a complete and total
    pacifist for me provides a means of avoiding a useless conversation.
    I will not discuss weapons deaths with people who belong to the NRA. It
    is a waste of my time, and a waste of his time. I won't discuss the
    Gulf War with Mike Valenza (an otherwise fine fellow) because he is
    opposed to ALL war.
    I won't talk to 7th day adventists who knock on my door either
    And if somebody I know were to get involved with a discussion with
    members of any of the above groups, I want to make sure that is public
    information.

>        <<< Note 745.41 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>
>                                  -< re .-1 >-

>    I believe that at best you are trying to clarify only those facts that
>    support what I understand to be the principal goal of the NRA. 

Everyone brings some bias to any discussion. refusing to discuss an issue 
because you have a preconceived notion means you will never learn new facts,
on any subject. That said. I am not trying to clarify facts because of
a goal, be it the NRA or anyone elses, only to say that there are legitimate
unbiased sources of the facts. AND in fact I suggested that people take the 
time to look them up themselves, rather than taking the (biased) word of Joe 
Biden or the (evil empire :-}) NRA.


>    And that is...
>    I believe that the PRINCIPAL agenda the NRA has is to do everything
>    possible within the law (including what I would characterize as legal
>    bribery -lobbying-) to prevent the passage of ANY and ALL laws that
>    infringe on their concept of the right to bear arms.

You are wrong. the principal agenda of the NRA is to promote the shooting 
sports, sponsor/train the U.S. olympic and world championship shooting teams,
teach safety etc. The Institute for Legislative Action is a registered
lobbying group and is connected with the NRA. just as the unions have
labor lobbying groups paid by them to promote/support pro-labor laws
and prevent passage of anti-labor laws. other lobby groups include
Sierra club, Audobon, Amnesty international, NOW has a lobbying arm.
Lobbying is not the immoral activity infered.


>    I believe that knowing you are a member of the NRA is going to cause
>    people to think differently about what you have to say concerning
>    weapons. I think that is important.

Most of this discussion was about all crime not crime commited with weapons.
the numbers don't break it out but I can tell you where to find the break-out
but you'd have to do the research since you are convinced that anything I 
print is probably tainted by my PTA ooppss NRA membership.

Amos

    Re. 42
    
    	I wish to thank you for an excellent note. Bias in this conference
    is rampant. PC is alive and well in this notes file. Allot of people
    here make their own statistics to serve their agenda. Your suggesting
    that they research the facts seems to have put a few in attack mode
    (standard reaction). Again good note.
    
    
    		Wayne

I'd also like to thank the author of .42.  Taken alone, it would sound like 
bias, and it's undeniable that everyone comes to this with SOME kind of bias.
The invitation to verify the figures, though, does help level the playing field.

Flames ahead.  Bail out now.

I was very interested to read the statistics that were posted by the NRA 
member.  I'm not labelling here, but for the life of me, I can't remember the
name, and I'm just too lazy to go back n replies to find it.

Yes, there are always other sides to any story.  It's not at all surprising to
me that the other side of the issue would come from an NRA member.  It's not
that I'm expecting them to be dishonest.  I just expect them to be able to
speak from greater authority on matters concerning guns than those who make a
profession of avoiding any real personal knowledge of firearms (and, no, I'm
not pointing fingers at anyone in this file - just at "Senatorial findings").

What burns me with respect to this conference is that if a person takes any
position that's remotely pro-gun, then they're going to get dragged into a
credential waving contest, with the assumption that admiting membership to
organizations like the NRA would negate anything meaningful they had to say.

For that matter, it really p*sses me off that I feel the need right now to 
spring up and verify my credentials to support my own statements.  I don't want
to do that, but I don't want to feel like I'm being discounted as "another
crackpot member of {name your own alleged crackpot organization} who's too 
afraid to admit it", just because I didn't hurl all sorts of disclaimers around.

Ok, I'll admit it:  I'm a fully naturalized citizen of the U.S. of A.  This 
alone should reveal my hidden agenda, which in turn makes everything I say
meaningless, predictable and politically incorrect.

in re .43


>    Re. 42
    
>    	I wish to thank you for an excellent note. Bias in this conference
>    is rampant. PC is alive and well in this notes file. Allot of people
>    here make their own statistics to serve their agenda. Your suggesting
>    that they research the facts seems to have put a few in attack mode
>    (standard reaction). Again good note.
    
    
 >   		Wayne


Speaking as a person here, not a moderator, Wayne, your replies
are rather simplistic. There is no 'file policy' particular subjects
there are only subjects that people who read the file find important.

One could equally accuse any file dedicated to topics about guns and
war of showing their bias. There are many members of this file who
are anti war and anti guns. This is one of the few files where the
majority of the members support such a stance. So what? Do such
people not have the right to express their opnions? You will also
notice if you take your blinders off that the vast majority of the
file supports and applauds Nancy Bittle who is strongly pro guns,
as well as other gun supporters.

Stop looking at this file with preconceived blinders and read
what people actually are saying.


In re  .44

You criticised the author of .42 who is *one* file member, and one
who is often confrontational. So what? Are you asking the moderators
to censor what people say here? That was one person expressing that
person's opinion. That person has as much right to express their
opinion as anyother noter including you.

>For that matter, it really p*sses me off that I feel the need right now to 
>spring up and verify my credentials to support my own statements.  I don't want
>to do that, but I don't want to feel like I'm being discounted as "another
>crackpot member of {name your own alleged crackpot organization} who's too 
>afraid to admit it", just because I didn't hurl all sorts of disclaimers around.


again this is false, see the support that Nancy Bittle and other
women who shoot have gotten in this file.... why do you center on one
author of one note?

yes people like Lorna and Mike who are strongly anti gun write in this
file. So what? Should we delete their notes? Your notes? Why must you
make this an adversary situation ( a win / lose ) why not accept that
this is a file where opinions you don't like are freely expressed and
you have the right to express yours also (with in the bounds of courtesy
on both sides.)

>Ok, I'll admit it:  I'm a fully naturalized citizen of the U.S. of A.  This 
>alone should reveal my hidden agenda, which in turn makes everything I say
>meaningless, predictable and politically incorrect.


Horsefeathers, only in your own mind sir, such bias has never been
shown or expressed in =wn= to my personal knowlege.

Bonnie, speaking for herself

    .45:
    
    If I left the impression that I was getting on the case of the author
    of .42, then I have failed in my communication, since I was quite
    delighted with both the form and content of that reply.  In all
    seriousness, I thought it was a well written reply, and appreciated
    much of what was said.
    
    Without going down a semantic rathole on what I said in .44 and how I
    meant it to be interpreted, I'll suggest that we ignore the whole
    thing.  I don't intend to delete that reply (although the moderators
    may, if they think it's out of line), just because I don't think it's
    possible to "unsay" anything.  By "ignore", I don't mean to pretend I
    didn't say it, but to just give me a chance to try to say it a little
    more clearheadedly.
    
    First off, I did not propose to censor anyone's notes.  Generally, I
    get upset when any notes are censored, no matter how much I disagree
    with them.  If I left the impression that any replies should be
    censored, deleted, hidden, etc, then I again apologize for failing to
    communicate effectively.  I was a bit hot under the collar, and
    probably less than coherent.  Please excuse my indiscretions.
    
    What I had let get up my nose is the attitude that someone is not to be
    listened to, simply because she or he is a member of some group.  I
    found that some interesting material was provided in previous replies,
    and I didn't think it appropriate to say that it should be immediately
    discounted just because its poster is an avowed (or otherwise) member
    of the NRA.
    
    In writing this, I was feeling the need to say "I'm not a member of the
    NRA, but I think there's something here worth discussing", and in the
    process, I got upset at feeling that I had to disclaim any association
    with that group, lest I'd be immediately discounted in the same
    fashion.  I did not mean to imply that I would suffer this fate from
    all members of the conference, or even most of them.
    
    As a tangent, I think an awful lot of the meat of discussions like this
    get ignored when parties from both sides start pointing fingers at each
    other and shouting "NRA" or "HCI" at each other, as if to ward off evil
    spirits.  Again, I mean to accuse only the people who do this, and not
    the whole conference.
    
    Similarly, given any "hot" political topic, we see that quite often the
    debate centers more on the political alignments of the combatants, and
    the actual subject matter at hand gets ignored.  I am not saying this
    is the pattern for this conference, however I am saying I'm going to
    get upset, no matter how small a minority demonstrates this behavior.
    
    Finally, I'm not sure what kind of strange custom is in place that
    would have a person refer to me as "sir", however I would kindly
    request that you do not address me in such a fashion, as I take that as
    a bit of an insult.  (No censorship necessary, just a possible
    misunderstanding.)

    Ummmmm....could you sign your notes, then, so that we have a name to
    use?  Sometimes it does get difficult.
    
    E Grace

    As an addendum to .46:
    
    Yup, I went back and reread my .44, and I can certainly see how it'd
    have been interpreted differently than how I meant it.  Shoot:  Reading
    through it got ME upset, and I thought I was the one who wrote it in
    the first place.
    
    Hmm.  Maybe I'd better quit while I'm behind.
    
    My sincerest apologies for the flaming.  I really should think these
    things through a little more carefully.
    
    I suppose if I signed my name, it probably wouldn't help much, as I
    rarely sign my first name, but nevermind.  Being a legend in my own
    mind, I keep forgetting that the whole world doesn't know who I am. ;-) 
    
    						Yours in meek humility,
    
    							Dawn Banks

    Thanks, Dawn.  It really does help (me anyway) to have a name, a
    *person*, to go with notes, and not just a NODE::NAME.
    
    E Grace

    
    
    in re .46
    
    sorry Dawn,
    
    and please excuse my sexism in assuiming by your note content
    that you were a man...
    
    can I say 'excuse me *mz*' ;-)
    
    and thanks for writing
    
    Bonnie

    I just re-read the basenote to get myself back on track...
    
    This nation will continue to be violent so long as boys/men are taught
    to solve problems and exert control by using violence, and so long as
    our leaders solve problems in the world using violence.
    
    It appears to "work", so they keep using it. In the long term, it
    doesn't "work" at all, but there's probably some satisfaction in
    bonking someone whose mind you can't change.
    
    Until *most* of us are socialized to solve problems not using violence,
    the hurting and killing will continue.
    
    --DE
    

    yes, Dawn, I agree, but there seem to be some patterns at work that
    make this particularly American.
    sure would like to understand what it is.
    
    
    				herb

    re.51 Oh, but it _does_ work - George Bush is guaranteed re-election.
    There isn't a politician in this country looking past the next 
    election. Heck, November '92 _is_ long-term thinking to most pols.
    
    You mean the *real* long term ? You're right, of course, but the
    powers that be _do not care_. 
    
    What we need, partly, is for people to learn to take the long view.
    And frankly, I don't see it happening.

>   This nation will continue to be violent so long as boys/men are taught
>   to solve problems and exert control by using violence, and so long as
>   our leaders solve problems in the world using violence.

Ahem. *Everyone* in this society is taught that violence solves problems, and
the teachers are all around us, including their mothers and fathers. The problem
is a fundamental one with this society. It is simplistic and sexist to say that
the problem is just that boys/men are being taught this. Think of it as a sex
linked genetic trait - the men may express it, but the women are carriers. We
must breed it out entirely, and NONE of us are untouched.
    
>   Until *most* of us are socialized to solve problems not using violence,
>   the hurting and killing will continue.

*Exactly*

	-- Charles

    Right, Charles.
    
    But I think that somehow, because of the short term "success" that
    violence seems to have, men view it as more successful (because they
    experience it), while women tend to see it as less successful.
    
    I honestly think that the training is more effective with men, and that
    we can't really know the basic feelings/thoughts of women because what
    many of us say and do is influenced so much by the patriarchal
    structure.
    
    I didn't mean to say (I didn't actually *say*) that men are genetically
    violent. However, 95% (at least) of boys/men are encouraged to display
    violence and use it to solve problems. And 95% (at least) of
    girls/women are DIScouraged from displaying it and using it to solve
    problems. Which makes woman-battering the "interesting" situation it
    is.
    
    Taking the long view...yes, indeed. *sigh*
    
    --DE
    

Dawn:

> I didn't mean to say (I didn't actually *say*) that men are genetically
> violent. However, 95% (at least) of boys/men are encouraged to display
> violence and use it to solve problems. And 95% (at least) of
> girls/women are DIScouraged from displaying it and using it to solve
> problems. Which makes woman-battering the "interesting" situation it
> is.

  Your use of fabricated statistics clearly suggests to me that
  you don't agree with Charles's point about your use of langauge
  even though you say you are "violent agreement".

  "Guns" are a use of violence, even if the trigger isn't pulled.
  Within this conference, many women support the use of guns.
  On this basis alone, your 5/95 splits seem fabricated.

  And, as I recall from my "who'd you vote for?" (note 133.* in
  the current file), from personal experience, and from guesses
  made while scanning the registered voter checklists, lots and
  lots of women supported Ronald Reagan and/or George Bush and
  for a wide variety of reasons.

  I would argue that by your standards, all of these women sup-
  port the use of violence, at least in certain circumstances
  like Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq, and the United
  States urban poor.

                                   Atlant

  Your use of fabricated statistics clearly suggests to me that
  you don't agree with Charles's point about your use of langauge
  even though you say you are "violent agreement".

Hey, leave me out of this. I think Dawn and I *are* in violent agreement. Men
and boys tend to be socialized to support the use of violence to solve conflicts
where women and girls are not. Dawn was expressing an OPIONION, I happen to
agree with her premise, but wanted to *clarify* the language.

	-- Charles

    Well, ATlant, if you were to argue that *I* believe that most women
    support the use of violence, you'd be wrong.
    
    RE: Charles' notes, my notes, and further thoughts
    
    1. Everyone, male and female, is capable of violence. EVERYONE, unless
    physically handicapped in some way, is capable of throwing a punch,
    slapping someone, pulling a trigger. More men do these things than do
    women. Period. Why? I believe it's because they are socialized to do
    so.
    
    2. Men are much more likely than women to use the actions of violence
    in supposedly nonviolent situations. Teen-age boys greet each other
    with punches and slaps. Boys commmunicate with their fathers by
    "play-fighting". They were *taught* to do this - it's not in the genes.
    
    (I don't really have to say "not ALL boys/men" do I? I didn't think
    so.)
    
    --DE
    

>        <<< Note 745.58 by THEBAY::COLBIN::EVANS "One-wheel drivin'" >>>
>                -< I never claimed statistics. Gimme a break. >-

  Your words ("95%") speak for themselves and put the lie to your
  title above.

                                   Atlant

    Atlant, I didn't read Dawn's '95%' as statistics, but as another way of
    saying 'most'. I would have interpreted any number above 80% similarly.
    
    manisha

    RE: .60
    
    That's how it was meant.  That's how most reasonable people that I know
    would've taken it. OF course, I don't know *all* the reasonable people
    in the world.
    
    --DE
    

  When you're finished mocking me, will you get around to addressing
  the main point in my reply?  Namely, that both MEN and WOMEN in
  this country strongly support violence through their direct actions,
  their indirect actions, and their inaction?

>  "Guns" are a use of violence, even if the trigger isn't pulled.
>  Within this conference, many women support the use of guns.
>  On this basis alone, your 5/95 splits seem fabricated.
>
>  And, as I recall from my "who'd you vote for?" (note 133.* in
>  the current file), from personal experience, and from guesses
>  made while scanning the registered voter checklists, lots and
>  lots of women supported Ronald Reagan and/or George Bush and
>  for a wide variety of reasons.
>
>  I would argue that by your standards, all of these women sup-
>  port the use of violence, at least in certain circumstances
>  like Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq, and the United
>  States urban poor.

                                   Atlant

  >   <<< Note 745.63 by IMCRZY::SCHMIDT "Thinking globally, acting locally!" >>>

  >  When you're finished mocking me, will you get around to addressing
  >  the main point in my reply?  Namely, that both MEN and WOMEN in
  >  this country strongly support violence through their direct actions,
  >  their indirect actions, and their inaction?

  Well, that certainly seems to cover all bases.  If I understand you
  correctly, you are saying that almost everyone (95%?) in this
  country supports violence no matter what they do or do not do.

  If that is so, what do you suggest people do, or not do, in order
  not to support violence?

  JP

John:

> If that is so, what do you suggest people do, or not do, in order
> not to support violence?

  As a start, eliminate some of the motivations to violence:

    - Feed the hungry
    - House the homeless
    - Empower the powerless
    - Ensure medical care for all
    - Ensure education for all

    - Be willing to *PAY* to ensure our society works today
      and lives on into tomorrow.

    - Ensure justice for all, including those who enforce the justice.

    - Compress the ratio between the "haves" and the "have nots"
      from today's 1:10,000,000,000 or so to something like 1:1000.
      Then compress it again.

                                   Atlant

    re .65,
    
    Yea?  Let's just suppose that what you have proposed are desirable
    goals.  Do ya have any specific plans to achieve them?  Talks are cheap
    and dreams are free, but ya gotta pay to live in the real world.  
    
    Eugene

  Some of the items on my list are free -- requiring only attitude
  adjustments.  Others are clearly expensive.

  A violent death is also expensive.

  Living in fear of violence is also expensive.

  Living with injustice is corrosive to the soul.

  I'm starting to become unspeakably sick of the late-80's attitude
  of "I got mine -- too bad about yours".  Much of the nation's vio-
  lence, in fact, much of the world's violence is directly attribut-
  able to the fact that so many are so much richer than so many others,
  and the rich are basically spitting on the poor.

                                   Atlant

    re .67,
    
    Attitude adjustments are free???  That's gotta be the hardest thing to
    do, and if you ask me, it is down right futile to try.
    
    Yes, a violent death is expensive.
    Yes, living in fear of violence is also expensive.
    But rhetoric is cheap...
    
    And I have yet to hear any practical plan from you...
    
    Eugene

    Well, my thoughts below are still not very well stated, but in the
    interest of keeping abreast of this discussion, am going to submit
    them anyhow. 
    
    some of the views in .65 come very close to my opinions/feelings about
    the cause of a lot of violence in our society.
    Namely, we have a permanent underclass in this society.  
    The huge social disparities between the underclass and the middle class
    in our society would be -indeed are- unacceptable in societies like
    Germany, and Scandinavia.
    I wish I could speak elequently about this but I don't know how to.
    Suffice it to say that most social democracies simply would not allow
    the squalor, the misery, the despair, the hopelessness, that exists in
    such large numbers in our urban areas.
    Our democracy is geared relatively well for the advantaged, and for the
    middle class, and even for the working lower middle class. But it is geared
    horribly for the under class. By underclass, I mean those who for reasons
    of race
       family
       income
       physical defects
       emotional defects 
       intellectual limitations or even
       temporary circumstances
       inclination (even)
    
    simply are unable to engage in the 'competition' that is such a keen
    part of our society. Are unable to take advantage of the 'fact' that we are
    all born in this country 'with an equal' chance. 
    And our immigration policies -i believe- are geared to support this.
    Namely, our immigration policies encourage if not the best and the
    brightest from other societies at least those who are undaunted by the
    challenges associated with just getting here. (e.g. the boat people
    from indo-China)

    Atlant, would you summarize your proposal as the redistribution of
    wealth in this nation?
    
    
    mdh

Marge:

  I don't know if I'd "summarize" my proposal that way, but that's
  certainly an essential part of it.  It's laughable to hear people
  complain that taxes are "killing" them while they drive their $30K
  cars, live in their $300K houses, and spend $30 per person for res-
  taurant meals.

  The metaphorical death they're suffering as a result of being "killed"
  by taxes is a good deal different than the actual death of children
  as a result of hunger, or as a result of being caught in the crossfire
  of an urban gun battle, or of dying of AIDS, or measles, or...

                                   Atlant

    re.71 Why shouldn't the spend it? a) they earned it and b)if
    they invest it in job-producing new business ventures they'll
    just get taxed all the more. Is that "I got mine etc." attitude
    so hard to understand? How much capital gets sucked down the 
    bureaucratic rathole that is our welfare system? How much 
    investment in new manufacturing is discouraged by our excessive
    taxation on investment. (One of the ultimate obscenities is the
    nootion that money earned by investment is _unearned_, as if
    it takes no mental effort, no work, to invest wisely.) Is it
    just coincidence that the more we spend in the public sector
    the more we _have_ to?

    re .-1 & Atlant
    
    good job guys! (particularly Atlant)
    
    another lost opportunity to discuss a problem without sloganeering 

    How about a personality portrait of an archtypical underclass teenager
    
    14 years old
    mother substantially less than forty (maybe not much older than 30)
    a heroin/coke addict and a prostitute (carrying aids virus)
    occasionally his grandmother is able to give him some meals
    already a school drop out even thought not old enough
    a drug runner
    has seen 3 people shot down in the street in the last 6 months.
    has an I.Q. of about 95 (but it is very difficult to test because his
    language (Black urban uneducated English) is so different it is very
    difficult to measure.
    sexually active (one 13 yr old has already gotten an abortion)
    
    
    What does our society do to help his mother?
    What does our society do to help him?
    What does our society to to end the cycle?
    
    Should our society do anything?

Herb:

> re .-1 & Atlant
>    
> good job guys! (particularly Atlant)
>    
> another lost opportunity to discuss a problem without sloganeering 

  Huh???

  I claim that we will not solve the problem of violence as long as:

    o There is a stunning imbalance in the distribution of wealth, and

    o Violence is such a succesful tactic.


  Where's the slogan in that?

                                   Atlant

    Atlant:
    there are a nr. of provocative comments in .59 ff that have resulted in
    a nr of provocative  replies. In my opinion neither the provocative
    comments nor the replies further the discussion constructively.

    re: .74
    
    I think the question is what can we do to prevent more children from
    becoming like that 14 yr. old?
    
    Maybe - 1. Provide adequate nutrition for children.  Many food stamp
    programs are being cut back, with sufficient food children will be able
    to function much better.
    
    2. Continue to fund programs like Head Start, to try and ingrain the
    importance of education at a young age.  Also, this type of program may
    bolster some self-confidence in a child.
    
    3.  Push for community programs to give kids something else to do
    besides use drugs, have sex, and kill each other.  Organize activities
    that will take kids off the street, perhaps even take then on day trips
    to state parks or somewhere OUTSIDE of the ghettos.  Install a sense
    that there may be a way to get OUT of the squalor that exists around
    them.
    
    Ultimately, there have to be folks from INSIDE the ghettos who are
    willing to work for these goals.  If someone came along with a cohesive
    plan to organize community leaders, and they could be assured of at
    least a small amount of funding to get the program off the ground,
    there might be some progress.
    
    I've heard it stated several times that a majority of the crime in
    ghettos is performed by a small percentage of hardcore criminals. 
    Maybe if these people were separated from the others who really want 
    to make a difference (like letting them stay in jail for 5 years on
    their 10th robbery conviction) there might be a chance to bring back
    parts of the bad areas. I'm of the opinion that there are good people in
    these areas, but they feel helpless to do anything.  There has to be a
    route out.  There will be those who don't want to take that route but
    it should be there for those who do.
    
    Lisa  

    I totally agree that one part of the solution is to intercede in such a
    way as to prevent future children from becoming like that 14 yr. old.
    
    There are a few questions that come up in that context.
    
    What will work?
    Should we do it?
    Are we willing to pay for it?
    
    Wrt to "what will work" I read a very stimulating piece in the Boston
    Globe last week. The author's point that interested me was to the
    effect that we first need to conduct some experiments to determine what
    will work, how long will it take etc.
    He suggested that 'experimental communities' should be selected, and 
    for each community a totally integrated set of solutions brought to
    bear and the 'results' measured periodically. A different integrated
    solution for each 'experimental community' That would at least
    (hopefully) have the result of determining which 'solutions' are most
    successful. And the scale would (hopefully) be small enough to justify
    expenditures.
    I guess I would envision such experimental programs as being
    designed/conceived by teams of sociologists, psychologists,
    nutritionists, religious leaders, political leaders, educators,
    physicians (anybody forgotten?). 
    As a possible model with a narrower focus, perhaps one can look at the
    Chelsea (Mass) school system. The Boston University School of Education
    is essentially running that school system and has been for a couple of
    years. John Silber -president of B.U. has said things like... "if our
    School of Education cannot make an important positive impact on the
    Chelsea School System then it does not deserve to continue in
    existence" ... what use is a School of Education if it can't run a
    school system ?"
    
    That begins to look at what will work and sort of how to do it.
    
    Unfortunately, it begs the question of whether our society will allow
    such experiments to be conducted. Whether our society is ready to pay
    the premium. 
    
    With respect to should we do it...
    
    I am always reminded of Herbert Hoover's (president during the crash of
    '29 ) comments about the depression.
    It was to the effect ... "I know what has to be done, I do not believe
    it is the province of government to do it" (Recall that Hoover played
    an instrumental role in the economic reconstruction of western Europe
    -i think after WW I.
    At that time the country opted to elect somebody who DID think it was
    within the province of the presidency (Roosevelt)

    Re:77
    
    I think the question is what can we do to prevent more children from
    becoming like that 14 yr. old?
    
    Maybe - 1. Provide adequate nutrition for children.  Many food stamp
    programs are being cut back, with sufficient food children will be able
    to function much better.
    
    >Restart the old system of food distribution through the cities. Do
    >away with Food Stamps. It's one of the most abused programs in the
    >country. They are bought and sold for drugs and alcohol while kids
    >starve and the parent doesn't care. 
    
    2. Continue to fund programs like Head Start, to try and ingrain the
    importance of education at a young age.  Also, this type of program may
    bolster some self-confidence in a child.
    
    >I agree.
    
    3.  Push for community programs to give kids something else to do
    besides use drugs, have sex, and kill each other.  Organize activities
    that will take kids off the street, perhaps even take then on day trips
    to state parks or somewhere OUTSIDE of the ghettos.  Install a sense
    that there may be a way to get OUT of the squalor that exists around
    them.
  
    >The program better give them more money than drugs, more pleasure than
    >sex, more excitement than killing someone. The program has to start
    >with little kids. The older ones won't believe anything presented by a 
    >suburban white collared person (of any race).
      
    Ultimately, there have to be folks from INSIDE the ghettos who are
    willing to work for these goals.  If someone came along with a cohesive
    plan to organize community leaders, and they could be assured of at
    least a small amount of funding to get the program off the ground,
    there might be some progress.
    
    > It's called creating jobs. Stop giving away money and have people
    > work. It instills pride and commitment to excellence.
    
    At one time, the city of Portland, Maine, made an attempt to show young
    mothers how to shop for food. How to get the most from the limited
    funds they had to work with. My wife worked for a local grocery chain
    and watched this program over a period of time. The mothers would also
    get training in how to cook and prep the food they purchased. The city
    also refurbished and modernized the apartments these women lived in and
    upgraded appliances etc. 
    
    Result: Most never followed the training. Many of them still purchased
    a case of pepsi, a bunch of subs, and sold the rest of the stamps at 50
    cents on a dollar. Why? Who knows. They each have their own reasons. 
    I'm against welfare. 
    
    I believe in workfare and fair share. This week, you sweep the streets
    and pick up trash while I watch your kids. Next week, we swap. We get
    our workfare checks for performing services for the community good. If
    we have handicaps or limitations, we can perform duties that or
    limitations allow. Everyone puts something into the system and no one
    freeloads. That's equitable distrbution of wealth. Nothing is worth
    anything unless it's earned. Earning promotes self pride and self
    esteem, a sense of worth and accomplishment. It also allows a person to
    say that they're not a "recipient" of anything. They become a provider
    of services or improver of life, including their own.
    
    Ken 

    re: .79
    
    I was a recipient of Aid to Dependent Children for 6 years in the early
    '80s.  This is the reality folks.
    
    1.  The system is set up so that most people can't get off the system. 
    For example, i lived in northern VA.  i had one course to complete for
    a Liberal Arts AA.  with that education, i could get a minimum wage job
    that paid $3.25 per hour.  Child care at that time was running in the
    range of $2.00 per hour.  That left $1.25 per hour for state and
    federal taxes, Social Secuity taxes, food, rent, clothing, baby needs,
    and transportation to work and babysitter.  Lets' see, that's $48.20. 
    Apartments were running $300 per month.  Right there, one can see the
    impossibility to get off the system.
    
    2.  The system SAYS it supports training and education for enabling
    people to get out of the system.  My experience:  The training they
    wanted to provide would only enable the person to get a minimum wage
    job.  (See #1 above for how far minimum wage goes to support 2 people). 
    I applied for a Pell Grant and was turned down.  (My monthly check was
    $285).  I was lucky enough to have a grandmother who gave me money for
    tuition and books.  AFDC paid for child care while i was in school
    finishing the Liberal Arts AA and completing a Paralegal AA.  Of course
    i had to lie about where the tuition and book money was coming from or
    else all aid would have stopped.
    
    3.  I had received $100 per month in food stamps in addition to the
    monthly support UNTIL the Reagan administration passed new rules about
    who qualified.  I lived with my mother, paid her $150 per month rent,
    and bought my own food.  Because we didn't have separate entrances and
    kitchen facilities, i was disqualified and lost the WHOLE food stamp
    subsidy.  They took food out of my baby's mouth.  Just like that.
    
    You only hear about the abusers of AFDC and food stamp, but most of the
    people use the money and stamps for what they are intended, a roof over
    they and their children's backs, clothing, and food.  Most of the
    people were illiterate.  Even myself, as a college-educated individual,
    had a hard time diciphering all the rules and regulations of the AFDC
    and food stamp policies.
    
    For those of you who may not know me, I have been in Digital's
    Government Systems Group organization, analyzing government contract
    terms and conditions, and was a member of the GSG Policy Committee, so
    I am versed enough in Government regulations and policies to understand
    what most people don't.  I know Government speak, which is one reason
    why i was hired at Digital.
    
    Until the system is overhauled and policies are put in place to truly
    help the people receiving aid, people will continue to be trapped in
    the system.
    
    Sometime shortly i will enter my solutions, but you can bet your bottom
    dollar that the Hill will not pass any legislation regarding these
    solutions nor will the Administration form any regulations that will
    permit dismantling of the system.  Too many people, aside of the ones
    who really need it, are benefiting from the system.
    
    sue

    I too was a recipient (through my mother) of AFDC for a number of
    years.
    Our family is one of the few AFDC successes I know about (and it was
    very, very rough, and the successes have been very uneven). 

    I am in the process of making available some magazine articles that
    speak to the issues of violence in our cities.  They are primarily
    about blacks, but that is unimportant. In my generation, the urban poor
    were almost all white, and life was *(ALMOST) as desparate for us
    poor-white-trash as it is nowadays for the blacks.
    
    
    				herb

    Temporarily, you can get the articles from me.  They are
    
    Growing up Scared (Jun 90 Atlantic Monthly. A very liberal magazine
    The auther is Carl Zinnmeister from the American Enterprise Institute
    a very conservative thinktank
    
    America's Blacks: the Economist Mar 1991 No author (a British
    periodical)
    
    America's Wasted Blacks: the Economist Mar 1991 No author (a British
    periodical)
    

    I totally agree that part of the problem is unequal distribution of
    wealth. Another part of the problem is that violence is taught as a
    Way of Life, and therefore, a solution. Definitely a bad combination.
    
    I heard the statistic (NOTICE: Atlant: THIS IS PRESENTED AS A
    STATISTIC, WHICH WAS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHOR OF A BOOK ON THIS VERY
    SUBJECT. THIS IS A STATISTIC.) that, in the last 10-20 years, the 
    income of the bottom 20% of people in this country has gone *down* by
    40%, and the income of the TOP 1%  (yes, that's *1*) has risen by 100%
    (yes, that *100*). In addition, the combined wealth of those in the
    top 1% equals the combined wealth of those in the bottom 20%.
    
    I also heard an economist who has written a book about world economics
    in the future say that this is happening all over the world. It's no
    longer a matter of a small number of rich countries, and a large number
    of poor countries...it's a small number of Very Rich in every country,
    and a Growing Number of Poor in every country.  Looks like economics
    has gotten to a "Planetary Consciousness" long before politics has.
    
    But this, then, does not explain why the U.S. in particular is such a
    violent society.
    
    --DE
    

    Dawn:
    
    <in re why in America
    May I recommend Growing Up Scared?
    
    see .82 for how to get it
    
    				herb