Stefan Molyneux

I guess once you are immune from the laws of economics, the rest is easy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3l_e_paeIA http://www.fdrurl.com/lanzatherapist Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com Note, I think it is not confirmed that the mother volunteered at his school. Radical Attachment Disorder (RAD) children were not born RAD. They were born to love and be loved. Every child I ever met with a propensity for violence was the natural product of extremely painful treatment, usually beginning with being left in daycare too young (perhaps as newborns) and too long (daily, throughout their first years). It was so painful the child drew a conclusion that they were alone in the world, and they gave up on the deepest drive and hope of all, love. They gave up on loving and being loved and cherished. They were not loveable. They decided they were on their own and there was no adult in the world they could trust. They decided never to be vulnerable again, because it hurts too much. We all know adults who feel that way. This is why. However, our injuries were small compared to Adam's, Dylan's, Eric's, Jared's and Seung-Hui's. It's relative. Sometimes a three-month-old draws this conclusion. I have seen it. The infant will arch her back and push away. If the parent tries to make eye contact or talk tenderly, she will wriggle or point to the corner in the ceiling to "change the subject". Sometimes a two-year-old draws the same conclusion. It is a decision a child forms before the age of three when the seeds of extreme violence are set. By the same token, the seeds of resilient mental health are set before the age of five, the optimal year to let them leave home for a while. It all stems from how they are treated in the beginning years of life. It's a decision the child makes that can be unmade, with the right intervention. Everyone wants to love and be loved if it's safe, only if it's safe. Our evolutionary, genetic design requires a mother's warmth, holding and interaction. All infants need safety or the feeling of safety. All of us wanted to nurse and be cuddled when we were infants. We all wanted to feel gently touched. We wanted to engage with loving eyes and softly spoken words. All of us got our identity or our idea of what we were worth and who we were by how we were treated in the beginning. It's during this period that our temperament is formed, something that turns into personality as more experiences are had. During the first years our personalities form quickly, and our brains develop faster than it ever will again. More happens in the brain during these years. Unlearning and relearning the material of these years becomes more difficult as the child ages. If we spend our first years with one primary caregiver who adores us, but sets a reasonably high bar for us in terms of discipline and behavior, we become resilient and headed for greatness. If we spend our first years in daycare or with rotating caregivers or parents who are distracted, we form fragile identities. Anything in between produces in-between results. Without a secure attachment we are highly susceptible to future insults. From there, other abuses that most children could adequately handle become a tipping point for these children. As they get older, rejection becomes a trigger, rather, the trigger...

My understanding is that therapy does actually heal the brain: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub__iIOZ3Xc]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKRJyedmg] Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, is interviewed about the theory and practice of Peaceful Parenting. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com Ragamuffin Radio is available at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ragamuffinradio

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlolyUNGDWU] 0:00 Introduction/Sports Talk! 7:25 Hypocrisy Versus Morality 16:20 Shyness and Dating 1:00:20 Decisions and the Third 'F' 1:51:00 Should the State Ban Spanking? Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=339V3bY4DIY] Two libertarian thinkers discuss various ways to secure the freedom of the future, the security of children, and the peace of the world. http://www.laurettelynn.com Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l8btpW-hCY] 0:00 Why Statelessness? 3:28 Human Nature is Hierarchical? 8:54 Violence Crime without Government 12:36 Government Causes Crime Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio - and winner of the 2012 Liberty Inspiration Awards - talks with Ben Lowrey about how any why a society will flourish without a state. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com

Great introduction Pablo! I particularly liked: hmmm

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEndLctWQ-c] Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio - and recent winner of the 2012 Liberty Inspiration Awards - is interviewed by Michael Shanklin of http://voluntaryvirtues.com/ 1:40 What is voluntarism? 11:48 Anarcho Capitalism vs Anarcho Syndicalism 14:00 How would a free society survive among statist societies? 18:30 Can a free society survive when it trades with a statist society? 27:20 Can we achieve freedom by reestablishing a constitutional government? 32:10 Will America descend into a civil war? 38:40 What is the one thing that we can do to bring about freedom? 44:12 What role does personal virtue play in spreading freedom? Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com

Thanks, it's actually been a very positive experience overall, and it's given me a lot of empirical information to work with...

Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion.

So a day or two ago I got a $2 donation with no note from the donator, and I posted this on Facebook:"You received a donation of $2.00 CAD from..."I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but... My post promptly lit up with a vehemence that was probably visible from space. (If you’re interested, and have a strong stomach, you can check it out here:https://www.facebook.com/stefan.molyneux/posts/10151611301626679) I don’t remember many people asking me why I was sad to receive a $2 donation, but for those few who were curious, I will tell you.Let’s call the donator “Bob.” Why would Bob send me $2?First, Bob might really love Freedomain Radio, but sadly is completely broke.I have said many times that I don’t want donations to my show to be financially difficult for anyone. When people write to me saying that they are broke, but want to donate, I thank them but tell them to keep their money and take care of themselves first. In a recent Freedomain Radio Sunday call in show, one listener wanted to quit college and donate all of his tuition fees to Freedomain Radio. I thanked him, but refused. If he stays in college, he'll need the money – if he quits college, he'll need the money even more!If Bob is so broke that $2 is close to the maximum of his disposable income, I don’t feel comfortable accepting it - I mean, what if Bob suddenly needs to take a bus to the hospital? (I used to refund these small donations with a note of thanks, but then some of the “donators” went on Facebook complaining that I was rejecting their generosity, spitting in their faces, etc. etc.)So I don’t feel comfortable accepting Bob’s last remaining two dollars, but refunding it sometimes leads to more problems.That makes me feel sad.The second possibility is that Bob has a lot more disposable income than $2, but has only listened to a few shows, and really likes them. However, if Bob likes Freedomain Radio to the point that he wants to donate, then clearly he’s going to continue listening, so why not just wait until he has listened to more shows, and donate then? Imagine if I went to a convenience store knowing I wanted to buy 10 packs of gum, and then paid for each one as a separate transaction – and with Visa! Clearly I’m imposing unnecessarily high costs on the store, and doing something quite irrational. If that is Bob’s level of thinking, that makes me quite sad.Ah, but perhaps Bob has only listened to a few shows, doesn’t like them, and is not going to listen to any more. If so, then why donate? That seems like blindly following “orders,” which also makes me sad. Or, he is just spending 10 minutes sending me $2 so that I really understand that he doesn’t like my show and isn’t going to listen to any more.(Of course, if Bob has only listened to a podcast or two, and doesn’t like my show, he’s not going to be following me on Facebook, so if I post about the $2 donation, that isn’t exactly going to hurt his feelings.)Now perhaps there is some other reason for a $2 donation that I haven’t thought of, but that is easily taken care of. Some people who have sent me very low dollar donations have included a note – very easy to do – letting me know why, which is much appreciated. For instance, somebody send a small donation yesterday, but included this nice note:“Thank you Stefan for all of your hard work. I am regretful that my donation could not be more. I frequently share your links and try to present them as professionally as I can to engage those more well off to assist in your endeavors. I'm a poor artist ;(“If I were to send someone only $2, I would tell him why, just so he wouldn’t feel bad. If I sat through a three hour “pay what you want” concert, and then went up and handed the sweaty musicians $2 and walked away without a word, how would they feel?If Bob sends me $2, and doesn’t have the basic empathy to understand how that can make someone feel, then I feel sad about that - for Bob.Another possibility is that Bob is kind of vindictive and mean, and wants to send me a tiny donation so that I feel bad.That also makes me feel sad.This is not exactly an exhaustive list - I’m sure there are other possibilities - but I hope it gives some sense as to why felt sad, and hopefully that it can be of some value to ask a question or two before indulging in a silly flamefest that doesn’t make our community look overly rational and mature.

I tend to be a little bit more sympathetic, I think that parents are forced to pay for a terrible system, and then avoid that violence by pretending that the system is good. I mean, they can't change the violence, they may not have the money to homeschool or send their children to a private school, mostly because taxes are so high, so why torture themselves with focusing on an evil they cannot change?

Wow, I thought that was actually very well done, great acting, great script, I'm not sure how much was ad libbed, but it was really good, thank you for sharing. Not particularly funny, but striking.

You never promote violence, only peace. That is unstoppable.

I would like everyone who has engaged with this fellow to take a long look inside and figure out why.

From a Freedomain Radio listener: "Just want to say thank you for helping me find joy again in being a father." I asked him for more details, and he wrote: "Since I've stopped spanking, yelling and threatening my 3 beautiful children, our house has started healing and my relationship with my kids and wife is improving every day. It seemed, for a long time, that their behavior and mine was getting worse and I struggled to find happiness. Now, I listen and use empathy which has allowed me to actually communicate with them and have a relationship. It's more work now, but it feels like I am swimming with the current and moving swiftly forward, instead of swimming like crazy and moving backwards. It now seems worth the work. Again, thank you." And thank you all for your wonderfully kind support over the years. This is what we are doing.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4] Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, reveals the truth about the history and future of violence in America. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com 1. ( J10) Article: America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem Description: Includes extremely high murder rates for various U.S cities. Shows how alone, these cities are more murder prevalent than poorer, 3rd world countries. [/font] Shows that these high-murder level cities are not “Mccain and Romney territory” but the instead the voting base for Obama (probably relatively high government dependency rate relative to other cities). [/font] Shows that criminals do the vast majority of the homicides. [/font] Shows that gangs are responsible for most of the homicides. [/font] Argument Support: If these cities are not known for high gun ownership rates this could be a good way to prove that the gun ownership doesn’t kill but is also correlated with a lower homicide rate. [/font] If these cities do have a higher government dependence level than other cities, this could be a good way to show that government dependence is correlated with higher homicide rates. If these cities do have a higher government dependence level than others, other dysfunctions would be useful to look into to be correlated with the higher government dependence. [/font] Gun control. Previously convicted criminals in gangs do almost all the homicides. Making guns illegal doesn’t change whether or not these “illegal” people have guns, it changes whether or not their victims can have the potential to legally defend themselves. [/font] The problem is gangs so if gangs could be shown to be much the result of non-nuclear families and that non-nuclear families are much the result of welfare prevalence, than a strong case can be made to connect welfare to homicides. [/font] Can’t keep guns out of criminal’s hands through gun control (I’m not just talking about the police). Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.[/font] Important / Top Facts: Those 12 cities alone account for nearly 3,200 dead and nearly a quarter of all murders in the United States.[/font] Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.[/font] Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, the Midwestern 4.5 or the Illinois’ 5.6 rates[/font] To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.[/font] New Orleans which at an incredible 72.8 murder rate is ten times higher than the national average.[/font] New Orleans were a country, it would have the 2nd highest murder rate in the world, beating out El Salvador.[/font] Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but [/font]Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.[/font] Detroit has a worse murder rate than Colombia. Obama won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.[/font] Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In [/font]Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In [/font]New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%.[/font] Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.[/font] Leads, ideas to Look for: Level of government dependence for various U.S cities including the ones listed in the article and the least crime ridden ones. Government dependence can be judged by: welfare rate, food-stamp rate and level of public industry.[/font] If the above finding correlates in the predicted way, also find the level of dysfunctionality for the cities and see if it correlates with their level of government dependence. Dysfunctionality can be judged by: Teen pregnancy rates, average level of income, prevalency of single parent households, university graduate percentage, high school graduate percentage, murder rate, domestic violence rate, crime rate, drug user rate, obesity rate, average IQ level[/font] Look for facts that show that gang members mostly come from non-nuclear family households.[/font] Look for facts that show that welfare influences non-nuclear family households.[/font] Look for historical numbers before and after the welfare state to show the correlations between welfare and single parent households. [/font] 2. Gangs, Welfare and life-long dysfunction 1-2-3 Punch: 1) Gangs commit most of the crimes 2) Gang members mostly come from illegitimate families 3) Welfare strongly influences illegitimate families ( J10) Single parent = Gangs Link Pearson correlation coefficients revealed that the strongest negative correlations with gang-related homicide were log mean per capita income and proportion employed, and the strongest positive correlations were proportion single-parent families and proportion younger than 20 years of age. ( J10) Single parent = Gangs Link Why do African-Americans, with 12.6 percent of the nation’s population, account for 50 percent of the murder victims? Because fatherlessness is most pervasive among blacks. The illegitimacy rate among all Americans has been rising for decades. In 2012, we reached a grim milestone: The majority of births to women under the age of 30 are now outside of marriage. Among blacks, 72 percent of births are to unmarried women. And while some unmarried mothers go on to marry the fathers of their babies, it’s rare in the African-American community, where only 31 percent of couples are married (in 1960, it was 61 percent). The result of this adult folly is chaos, misery and often violent death for kids. Why do young males join gangs? Because without a father to guide and protect them, they seek physical protection from human predators as well as ratification of their masculinity from the gang. A counselor at a juvenile detention facility in California told the Patriot Post, “(If) you find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, I’d like to meet him. ... I don’t think that kid exists.” A full 85 percent of youths in prison come from fatherless homes, as do 80 percent of rapists, 71 percent of high school dropouts and 63 percent of teen suicides. An analysis of studies of family structure published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy found that 90 percent of the change in the violent crime rate from 1973 to 1995 was traceable to the rise of illegitimate births. A large sample looking at students in 315 classrooms in 11 cities concluded that “the single most important variable (in ‘gang centrality’) is the family’s structure ... the greater the number of parents in the household, the lower the reported gang centrality.” ( J10) Single parent = Crimes Link The concentration of single-parent families can affect even those with two parents. A study of 4,671 eighth-graders in 10 cities found that students who attended school with a large number of fatherless classmates were more likely to commit crimes, even if they came from intact families themselves. ( J10) Single parent = Poverty ( Argument A on the other page) Link According to a growing body of social-scientific evidence, children in families disrupted by divorce and out-of-wedlock birth do worse than children in intact families on several measures of well-being. Children in single-parent families are six times as likely to be poor. They are also likely to stay poor longer. Twenty-two percent of children in one-parent families will experience poverty during childhood for seven years or more, as compared with only two percent of children in two parent families. ( J10) 1960-1970s = decline debut Link Overall child well-being has declined, despite a decrease in the number of children per family, an increase in the educational level of parents, and historically high levels of public spending. After dropping in the 1960s and 1970s, the proportion of children in poverty has increased dramatically, from 15 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 1990, while the percentage of adult Americans in poverty has remained roughly constant. The teen suicide rate has more than tripled. Juvenile crime has increased and become more violent. School performance has continued to decline. There are no signs that these trends are about to reverse themselves. In the 1960s the rate of family disruption suddenly began to rise. After inching up over the course of a century, the divorce rate soared. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the divorce rate held steady at fewer than ten divorces a year per 1,000 married couples. Then, beginning in about 1965, the rate increased sharply, peaking at twenty-three divorces per 1,000 marriages by 1979. (In 1974 divorce passed death as the leading cause of family breakup.) The rate has leveled off at about twenty-one divorces per 1,000 marriages--the figure for 1991. The out-of-wedlock birth rate also jumped. It went from five percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1990. In 1990 close to 57 percent of births among black mothers were nonmarital, and about 17 percent among white mothers. Altogether, about one out of every four women who had a child in 1990 was not married. With rates of divorce and nonmarital birth so high, family disruption is at its peak. Never before have so many children experienced family breakup caused by events other than death. Each year a million children go through divorce or separation and almost as many more are born out of wedlock. ( J10) Single parent = Crimes ( This is a very good piece to help prove argument A from the other page) Link Nationally, more than 70 percent of all juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes. A number of scholarly studies find that even after the groups of subjects are controlled for income, boys from single-mother homes are significantly more likely than others to commit crimes and to wind up in the juvenile justice, court, and penitentiary systems. One such study summarizes the relationship between crime and one-parent families in this way: "The relationship is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. ( J10) Welfare = Crime Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today." Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates. Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood. Analysis of over 50,000 Washington State birth certificates from 1974 to 1975 revealed that males born to unmarried mothers under 18 years old had an 11-fold increased risk of chronic offending when compared with males born to married mothers aged 20 and older. Link ( J10) Welfare = Wedlock At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births. Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent. The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women." A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy. Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse."(10) Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..."(11) In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure. Link ( J10) Welfare = earlier pregnancy = increased homicide An American study into income inequality found that adolescent birth rates and general homicide rates were closely correlated with each other internationally and within the U.S https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/QtwpUHy70XsXl2iPCODh59t0_35aB9jTuBoQEtI9Dx9E5YGzfjfYT7vDg08dBLhU_I_F8Bz-fIht5EKsQttDV1PIr5CEcScAUqlzSgXKjM0A_uTONug That a similar pattern operates in New Zealand cannot be discounted without the relevant research. The findings may partly explain why Maori (the aboriginal people of New Zealand) make up around half of our prison population. As shown the Maori teenage birth rate is much higher than non-Maori. Maori are eight times more likely than non-Maori to be teenage parents on welfare, which compounds disadvantage. Link ( J10) Welfare = continued illegitimacy I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers. Link ( J10) Welfare = alienation There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check. Link ( J10) Non married men = more prone to violence ...single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men. Link ( J10) Matriarchy = Gang potential Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models....boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences. Link ( J10) Welfare = Increased Crime Counter-intuitively, many people believe that welfare reduces crime by providing an income to people who might otherwise become destitute. Yet New Zealand statistics show that welfare benefits are supporting the criminal classes. Figures released under the Official Information Act show there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who have had their benefits cancelled because they went to prison. In 2009 4,192 people had their benefit cancelled because they were going to prison. That is 37 percent up on the 2008 figure, and 47 percent up on the 2007 figure. 58 percent were Maori, 89 percent male and 47 percent came off a sickness or invalid's benefit. 468 parents or caregivers also left the DPB to go to prison. Link ( J11 ) Year after year the Department of Health and Human Services cites African Americans as the largest race/ethnicity group on welfare in percentage terms, usually 34%-38%. Link ( J11 ) Persistent poverty leads to familial dysfunction ...children who live in persistent poverty are twice as likely to live in a "dysfunctional" family, they are twice as likely to live with violence, and more than three times as likely to live with a depressed parent – all risk factors for social exclusion and eventual criminality. Link Forced Poverty; Violence achieves the opposite of its goal ( J11) - Unfortunately, child poverty in Canada shows no signs of diminishing. While the rate decreased slightly in the latter half of the 1990s, the latest figures indicate a child poverty rate of 15.6% – nearly one in six children. That is even higher than the rate of 15.2% recorded in 1989 when the House of Commons unanimously committed to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Instead, the number of children going hungry and the number of families becoming homeless increased substantially throughout the 1990s, further excluding these Canadians. Link ( J11 ) Proximity to welfare = increased child abuse. Link Welfare dependence is increasing in america (ctrl f “123” ) Child abuse is increasing in america (ctrl f “124” ) …and we know abuse = crime - Child abuse is prevalent in "communities of abuse" characterized by family breakdown. These also are communities of crime, characterized by the absence of marriage, the prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse, and a primary dependence on welfare. Children who grow up in these "communities" show signs of permanent damage; moreover, as statistics follow them over time, many prove to have been damaged for life. From these communities of abuse come society's "superpredators" (the psychopathic criminals of tomorrow), violent gang members, and other hostile, depressed, and frequently even suicidal young people. 3. Gang violence - Gangs commit an enormous amount of the total crimes: ( J10) Gangs Blamed for 80 Percent of U.S. Crimes Link ( J10) In Los Angeles and Long Beach, gang homicides account for the majority of homicides among 15 to 24-year-olds, 61 and 69 percent, respectively. In both the gang and non-gang worlds, homicide is the second leading cause of death among people aged 15 to 24. Link ( J10) Approximately 80 percent of all murders and shootings in the city of Chicago are gang-related Link 4. Book: Losing ground (not always 100% correctly paraphrased except for the numbers) ( J10) “The government social policy helped set the rules of the game, the stakes, the risks, the payoffs, the tradeoffs, the strategies for making a living, raising a family, having fun, defining what winning and success mean...”[/font] ( J10) “The first effect of the new rules was to make it profitable for the poor to behave in the short term in ways that were destructive in the long term. Their second effect was to mask these long term loses, to subsidize irretrievable mistakes...”[/font] 5. Aboriginal communities ( J11) Corruption in governance of aboriginal communities in Canada has been reported to be endemic. The socio-economic status of aboriginal communities appeared to be similar to countries with low Human Development Index. Link ( J11) Extra Welfare now and in history for native Canadians Link - ( J11) 1966 Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government accepted to pay half of a province’s social assistance costs, as long as certain conditions were respected regarding access, including regular coverage for all Aboriginal persons except Indians currently or in the previous year on reserves, which remained a federal responsibility. ( J11) All provinces reformed their social assistance along these lines, and the Department of Indian Affairs designed its income assistance to Indians on reserves to match the going provincial rates - ( J11) By 1990, 28.6% of Aboriginal identity persons over 15 years old received social assistance. For Indians on reserve, the rate was even higher, at 41.5%... - ( J11) In 2003, 34.8% of Indians on reserve received social assistance, compared to 5.5% for the country’s general population. In Manitoba, this rate for on-reserve Indians was 43.9%... - ( J11) Over time, a number of benefits and services were added, to cover, in particular, labor market and economic development programs, child welfare, education, health and housing. It is not possible, here, to present a full picture of these programs, but the resulting arrangement can be characterized as a somewhat modified version of the Canadian welfare state. Labor market and economic development programs are provided by the federal government to all Aboriginal peoples, as they are for all Canadians, since they are within the bounds of federal jurisdiction. Child welfare, education, health and housing programs, on the other hand, follow the bifurcated social assistance pattern... ( J11) Aboriginal people's living standards have improved in the past 50 years, but they do not come close to those of non-Aboriginal people: ( J11) Life expectancy is lower, Illness is more common, Human problems, from family violence to alcohol abuse, are more common too, Fewer children graduate from high school, Far fewer go on to colleges and universities, The homes of Aboriginal people are more often flimsy, leaky and overcrowded, Water and sanitation systems in Aboriginal communities are more often inadequate, Fewer Aboriginal people have jobs, More spend time in jails and prisons. Link ( J11) Urban Poverty in Canada, showed that Aboriginal people living in urban areas were more than twice as likely to live in poverty as non-Aboriginal people. Link [/font] ( J11) Native Welfare/Poverty correlation: According to the United Nations, First Nations children in western countries live in Third World conditions, with an estimated 80% of urban Aboriginal children under the age of 6 living in poverty. The number of Aboriginal children involved with the child welfare system across Canada is also growing, and it rose by 71.5% between 1995 and 2001. Link ( J11) Welfare = familial dysfunction = crime for the native community he 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples clearly linked unemployment, low income and poor educational attainment in their communities to subsequent criminality. Correctional Service of Canada also notes that Aboriginal offenders are more likely than non-Aboriginal offenders to have experienced poverty, family violence and substance abuse in their home environment, and as children, they were more likely to have been involved with child welfare services. T Various native canadian vs non-native statistics Link -( J11) ....the employment rate of Aboriginal peoples being almost ten percentage points below that of the non-Aboriginal population (53.7% compared to 62.7% in 2005). - ( J11) Basic education, for instance, was not as likely to be achieved, 43.7% of Aboriginal Canadians having less than a secondary education, compared to 23.1% for the non-Aboriginal population. - ( J11) Aboriginal identity persons also had significantly shorter life expectancy, and they faced higher risks of suffering from obesity, from chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure or heart problems, or from infectious diseases like tuberculosis and chlamydia (Canadian Population Health Initiative, 2004: 80-84). - ( J11) Table 1: Proportion of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population below Statistics Canada’s low income cut off after tax, in Canada and in the provinces, 2005 Aboriginal identity Non-Aboriginal Gap (percentage points) Nfld and Labrador 12.5% 8.7% 3.8% P.E.I. 16.2% 6.9% 9.3% Nova Scotia 15.4% 9.5% 5.9% New Brunswick 17.5% 9.2% 8.3% Québec 19.5% 12.5% 7.0% Ontario 18.4% 11.0% 7.4% Manitoba 28.6% 10.2% 18.4% Saskatchewan 28.2% 7.8% 20.4% Alberta 1 9.1% 8.6% 10.5% British Columbia 22.5% 12.8% 9.7% Canada 21.7% 11.1% 10.6% ( J11) Table 2: Unemployment rate of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population, in Canada and in the provinces, 2005 Aboriginal identity Non-Aboriginal Gap (percentage points) Nfld and Labrador 30.1% 18.0% 12.1% P.E.I. 17.3% 11.0% 6.3% Nova Scotia 15.5% 9.0% 6.5% New Brunswick 20.8% 9.7% 11.1% Québec 15.6% 6.9% 8.7% Ontario 12.3% 6.3% 6.0% Manitoba 15.4% 4.2% 11.2% Saskatchewan 18.2% 4.2% 14.0% Alberta 11.1% 3.9% 7.2% British Columbia 15.0% 5.6% 9.4% Canada 14.8% 6.3% 8.5% Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2006a (see footnote 4 below). Aboriginal children have a high exposure to welfare and familial abuse or other dysfunctions Link - ( J11) The overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system is a growing... - ( J11) Aboriginal children disproportionately come into contact with the child welfare system... - ( J11) Over 90% (94%) of Aboriginal caregivers were reported as experiencing at least one functioning concern, compared to 73% of non-Aboriginal caregivers and 66% of other visible minority caregivers. - ( J11) The problem that constituted the most frequent concern for Aboriginal families in the sample was alcohol abuse, reported for 72% of Aboriginal caregivers, as compared to 27% of the non-Aboriginal families and 15% of the other visible minority families. Drug abuse was noted twice as often for Aboriginal caregivers as for non-Aboriginal caregivers. - ( J11) The overrepresentation of alcohol and drug abuse in this sample is consistent with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs report that 62% of First Nations people aged 15 and over report that alcohol abuse is a problem in their community, while 48% report drug abuse as a concern - ( J11) Criminal activity by the caregiver was reported in 21% of Aboriginal homes, compared with 11% of non-Aboriginal homes. This rate is consistent with research by Foran (1995) for Corrections Canada, indicating that although Aboriginal peoples constitute 3% of the population, they comprise 17% of men and 26% of women who are incarcerated. - ( J11) Native familial dysfunction chart: Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Other visible minority ` 1st column 2nd column 3rd column Caregiver maltreated as child p = .001 51.3% 30.6% 19.3% Parental concerns Alcohol abuse p < .001 72% 27% 15% Drug abuse p < .001 31% 15% 10% Criminal activity p < .001 21% 11% 11% Cognitive impairment p < .001 9% 6% 3% Mental health problems p < .01 25% 28% 17% Physical health problems ns 8% 7% 6% Lack of social supports ns 37% 33% 34% Domestic violence p < .001 37% 27% 31% One or more parent concerns noted p < .001 94% 73% 66% Social assistance or other benefits p < .001 59% 38% 33% Single parent p < .001 57% 51% 41% Unsafe housing p < .05 9% 6% 4% - ( J11) The 2003 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect noted the same problems. Aboriginal caregivers were less likely than other caregivers to be employed full-time, and the toxic combination of poverty, inadequate housing, and parental substance abuse continued to bring more Aboriginal children into care. These factors also explain why Aboriginal cases predominantly involve situations of neglect (57.9 percent versus 34.9 percent in non-Aboriginal cases). Link ( J13) The Incarceration Rates for Aboriginal People are Almost 9 Times the National Average Link ( J13 ) Link Link^ 5.5 African-American communities ( J11 ) Black people have a much higher unwed birth rate than every other race in the U.S Link ( J11 ) Black people are the most likely to end up in prison in the U.S Link Link^ Link^ ( J11 ) Welfare dependence by race Link The rate is about 6.77 times higher for black people than white people according to my math (38.0/31.8) * (68/12) = 6.77 Plus if you think about it the math checks out because almost as many white people get welfare as black people 32% vs 38% and there are just under 6 times less black people in the U.S than there is white people. Total U.S welfare recipients 2004: U.S population 2004: White 31.8% White 68% Black 38.0% Black 12% Hispanic 24.8% Hispanic 14% Asian 2.0% Asian 4% Native American 1.5% Native American 1% other 1.9% other 1% https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/N3Rr2ZVXf_HpA-AUm2QjPrILu10xa6eZnRXHUKYpcjXHgnx-tHmHnMIbXG3iLPSV41RG8IQC-VDabaORTp9BLc674AK9AYiwUD4MuhSlGuUlNk4TAJIAhttps://lh6.googleusercontent.com/v6R3xiVq2aIcrdnIv4OuURZ8qxGRzUSJW11niEAKdnax31u14LPv_6rjzEwM5XSKEhB_coHj0CENKjAZ4Iaa2hxvcVcYMl_b6Y5EVZ0vS9GfH6rO3Awx Fig. 2 U.S. Population by Racial/ethnic Group: 2004 (Numbers in Millions). Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3. Link 6) Those who have escaped Poverty ( J11) 650 million escape extreme poverty. Thanks China! Nearly 650 million people escaped extreme poverty -- living on less than $1.25 a day -- between 1981 and 2008, according to the World Bank's survey. Link Graph https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/90H3zwPL9-M95FvShUeju4O-qzhmtVQb4_2A9PtKtffWXzgNOiY-ppOZ9O9uYKqmOCBLLxmBg8aJiwU9lDWzCG-JmsjMuEr2FnscFM-DJ4BxOgTgZt8 7. The Dark, Black hole of Dependance Canadians on welfare are stuck in a poverty trap because they're forced to give up their assets before they can get social assistance, then limited on how much they can earn once they find work.... People who get welfare can work, but their income is clawed back and they often lose other welfare benefits like dental care and housing support... Link ( J11) Effective marginal tax rates are remarkably high at very low levels of income. In fact, due to the interaction of various transfer programs, the effective tax rates are well in excess of 100% for certain annual income levels between $10,000 and $20,000. At income levels around$30,000, the effective marginal tax rate is about 80%. For any low-income Canadians facing marginal tax rates like this, what is the incentive to work harder and earn more Link ( J11) Graph #1: Number of Americans on food-stamp welfare 123 Link https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/7-51q9_WCbW88m3l-MJDmMvCGEki8w98SkFSUSQF5kEaBzByLqLN9q63-wwW64yBrMkmCLZTAMBOMtW9VC30S5XxJQ1RAiH0sIuhj8z2hpkCk9LzlFs About this graph: - Almost 15% of the country — 46.5 million Americans — lived off food stamps in May, a quarter-million increase from the month before. - The number of people on food stamps is growing three times as fast as the number of people finding jobs. ( J11) Graph #2: 123 The number of disability recipients in America over time [/font]Link[/font] [/font] About this graph: - The U.S. population has grown 6% since 2005 — from 296 million to 314 million. But the number of people on disability has grown nearly six times as fast: from 6.5 million to 8.75 million — or 34% — in the same time. ( J11 ) ...who actually gets the highest percentage of welfare? Single mothers. Nearly 90% of Americans who receive cash assistance benefits are single mothers. Over 31% of households headed by single women are poor. This group also stays on welfare the longest. Link ( J11) Graph #3: 123 Total Number of Americans on National Welfare over time Link About this graph: -This does not include those only benefiting from Social Security (Ponzi) and/or Medicare. 8. Miscellaneous, potentially useful facts ( J11) Last year, there were more than 1.7 million people drawing welfare in Canada, over 5 percent of the population. Link ( J11 ) [/font]Graph: Credibility of Mainstream Media over time [/font]Link[/font] [/font] ( J11 ) Paragraph to get an idea of how welfare negatively influences women’s choice in men Link - When a woman grows up in a home where money is delivered by government check, she has no idea what men are for. She chooses men solely based on physical appearance, popularity, and peer approval, and she has no idea what love really looks like between men and women. That’s why they repeat the mistakes of their mothers. And it’s not a problem that can be solved by confiscating more money from working fathers and giving it to single mothers – even wealthy single mother homes are not immune. If men are not seen as protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders in the home they grow up in, then they will choose “bad boy” predatorial men as sexual partners, using shallow criteria to judge them ( J11 ) Fatherlessness in America 1929-2010 and Wedlock births in America 1929-2010 [/font]Link [/font] ( J11 ) 124 Things are getting much worse for children... [/font] ( charts are linked) Chart 1: Abuse and Neglect of American Children Has Increased 134% Since 1980 Chart 2: All Types of Child Abuse Have Increased Since 1980 Chart 3: The Proportion of Children Entering Broken Families Has More Than Quadrupled Since 1950 Chart 4: The Incidence of Abuse Based on family Income: 1993 Chart 5: Relationships of Physical Abuse, Income, and Single Parent family Structure Chart 6: In Britain, a Child Whose Biological Mother Cohabits Was 33 Times More Likely to Suffer Serious Abuse Than a Child With Married Parents Chart 7: In Britain, a Child Whose Biological Mother Cohabits Was 73 Times More Likley to Suffer Fatal Abuse Than a Child With Married Parents Chart 8: Annual Child Rejection Ratio: Children of Divorce, Abortion,and Out-of-Wedlock Births Compared with Lives Births per Year Chart 9: Physical Abuse Has Increased 84% Since 1980 Chart 10: Sexual Abuse Has Increased 350% Since 1980 9. Welfare, single-parenthood and crime in England ( J11 ) Single-parent families so common in today's Britain that couples are now a minority...Seven constituencies in the country constitute more single-parent families than couples Link ( J11 ) Research shows children growing up in fatherless homes are much less likely to do well at school and are at twice the risk of getting into problems with drink or drugs, or involved in crime. The UK welfare system has been partly to blame, by providing a substitute breadwinner rather than encouraging parents to stick together Link ( J11) Welfare, Single parenthood correlation: It found we have more children living in one-parent families than any other European country and more of our single mothers are unemployed and on benefit than anywhere else on the Continent. Link ( J11) A chilling story of what welfare really subsidizes (Uk) Link : A SCHOOLGIRL who posed aged 12 for controversial bikini pictures in a magazine is now pregnant at 15 — to the joy of her mum. . . . Soya got pregnant by a 17-year-old boyfriend who is allowed by Janis to stay overnight at the family home. Jobless single mum Janis, 48, said she was delighted because the council will now have to give her a bigger house. . . . She added: “Our three-bedroom place was already overcrowded with her sisters Coco and Ritzy, her brother Tarot, Soya’s boyfriend Jake and one of her sister’s babies. “Once the new baby comes the council will have to find us a place with four or five bedrooms. . . . “I’m sure she’ll make a wonderful mum and will teach her children discipline like I have.” So “mum” Janis, 48, has apparently never had a husband or a job, and lives with her four children, one of them already herself a mother and the other now pregnant by the 17-year-old boyfriend whom Janis permitted to spend the night in their 3-bedroom public housing apartment. All of this social pathology is subsidized by the British taxpayer! - There are now nearly two million single parent families in Britain, official figures revealed yesterday. ( J11 ) Trend: Destruction of the English Family Linkhttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9fddnboEopCNnse-lGqhcAs8KJHETccVRiRBEkyIMsAyjI646JfzO6yDvw4fGN9f1RE1exKQ-h0eNUpKoyxifmcVslrzalytUL0bgI-NjdlmSikTvIP1 ( J11 ) Single parenthood by race in England Link The biggest percentage of lone-parent households is among black ethnic groups. Forty-eight per cent of black Caribbean families have one parent, as do 36 per cent of black African households. Single-parent families are less common among Indians (ten per cent), Bangladeshis (12 per cent), Pakistanis (13 per cent), Chinese (15 per cent) and whites (22 per cent). ( J11 ) Prison by race in England - Black prisoners make up 15% of the prisoner population and this compares with 2.2% of the general population – there is greater disproportionality in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than there is in the United States Link - Overall black prisoners account for the largest number of minority ethnic prisoners (54%). Between 1999 and 2002 the total prison population grew by just over 12% but the number of black prisoners increased by 51% ( J11 ) Cost of gangs in England Link ( J11 ) Fatherlessness = gangs in the Uk Link - A collapse in traditional fatherhood is driving children as young as 10 into gang culture, Iain Duncan Smith has claimed. - He said there was a "growing gangs problem", with around 6% of 10-19 year olds – 450,000 – reporting to belong to a gang. ( J12 ) Increasing crime trend in the Uk Linkhttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/O9RJyWtXJmzoT8lWsv7nrZwD1kIjZtuNKxG0r_OGMnfszJtTQh1-Jubgo2cx_BhTDcgDG0u8peaZBoac45dwbQCQNkqnBGkwvPVPjPKG29gl5ceKIya- 10. Consequences of fatherlessness ( J11 ) The whole article is just gold, I don’t think there is any need me to cut and paste from it. Although I would if you think it is useful? Link ( J11 ) WOW.....A high school graduate from a married household will do better on average of keeping his/her family out of poverty than a person who has come from a single parent household and has graduated college. [/font]Link[/font] ( J11) Marriage = Non-poverty [/font]Linkhttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/YUFSE2TFP72TGAVs8NDXky0QpNC-VrnsdVWF254b7KfVauPaR5OpBTUZ5mSBcHGkh-bHynBBY0NxIMDa54XCFdIuQ7io8pEe0r45OB7NYU8KUYm2vZQq ( J11 ) Non-marriage = everything worse for all races Link ….examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are: More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime; Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems; Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school; A third more likely to drop out before completing high school. ( J11) British data on fatherlessness and child abuse...Link The evidence from Great Britain is especially significant because, to date, this is the only study to explore the relationship between family structure and abuse. Specifically: The safest environment for a child--that is, the family environment with the lowest risk ratio for physical abuse--is one in which the biological parents are married and the family has always been intact. The rate of abuse is six times higher in the second-safest environment: the blended family in which the divorced mother has remarried. The rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child is living with a biological mother who lives alone. The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with a biological father who lives alone. The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with biological parents who are not married but are cohabiting. The rate of abuse is 33 times higher if the child is living with a mother who is cohabiting with another man. ( J11) Fatherlessness = teenage pregnancy - Girls who grow up without their fathers are at more at risk of becoming pregnant while still teenagers, long-term studies in the US and New Zealand suggest. Researchers say the absence of biological fathers from the home is the most significant factor for teenage pregnancy. - Dr Ellis worked with teams of scientists from the Christchurch School of Medicine and three US universities. Nearly 800 American and New Zealand girls were tracked from early in life to age 18. The study revealed that the earlier a father left, the greater the risk of teenage pregnancy. Rates increased from about one in 20 in the US sample and one in 30 in the NZ sample for girls whose fathers were present, to one in three in the US and one in four in NZ for girls whose father left early in their life. Early absence was defined as the first five years of a girl’s life. Link ( J12) Singleparentdom = Poverty ( again) Link The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America's economic ladder. According to the U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%; for Hispanics, the figures were 37.5% and 12.8%; and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. ( J12 ) Fatherlessness = Seriously harmful crimes Link According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. ( J12 ) Wedlock = future wedlock Link ….those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation. 11. Historical crime, welfare and single parenthood rates ( J11 ) Steady single parenthood rates from 1880 - 1960 Link For 80 years, from 1880 to 1960, the proportion of black children living with a single parent held steady around 30 percent, according to the new research by the University of Minnesota. During the same time, the proportion of white children living with one parent stayed at about 10 percent. But in recent years, those figures have climbed - to 63 percent for black children and 19 percent for white. ( J11 ) Single parenthood rates before and after 1960s welfare state Link Starting around 1940, black children were increasingly likely to live in a home without a father. In 1940, for example, 19 percent of black children between the ages of 10 and 14 were living with their mothers only, a figure that jumped to nearly 47 percent in 1990. In white households, 8 percent of the children between 10 and 14 lived with their mothers only in 1940, compared with 15 percent in 1990. ( J11 ) 1980-2000 Incarceration percentage per population for black men increase by 1100% Link ( J11 ) Welfare state = African American devastation Link - The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty. ( J11 ) Poverty was declining until....Link - As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in halfbetween 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter. ( J11 ) Illegitimacy rates were low until...Link - In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks in particular. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women. Today the illegitimacy rates stand at 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for African Americans specifically. ( J12 ) African-American illegitimacy rate 1950 and now Link As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure. Also...as late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent. ( J12) Have a look at this! Completely correlated with the start of the welfare state and the subsequent increase in illegitimacy rates Link p.283https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/vYjOFJkYYexDU8znE2K21WifoJmfsjOJQD-ZZLFIz9QQO-5uAUlFks-asbkzVv5yJgV8nXi0VMEJm2RQ5NfbT7Da6_6cOgS2YNikZjRKOfg0Cr3oBb-6 Link p.114 Link p. 118 - Most of the increase in crime from 1960-1980 happened from 1965-1970 Link p.114-115 Crimes decreasing 1950-1960 then increasing from 1960-1980https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/JDpQwsvWcfhMr1SWc98DWOn1WufNEkUlLmk4oBbgY4rbXI_H3bvNMpwheYVZS8FYrT-s6TwzzxFnMfjeZ78QM6Mzj9svujMnN7i6fmxjV4HWnIYpu_shttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9WXPgcNlYMDe02Jb8A26_V0SNKo9FkWhmO14r7lSBjXLx83jVFHn-V01981eFatmYQe_LfROjmtQ6s9FpIza6eg4dOds2uftD6Z3TAL7NaCqkJMH21s ( J13 ) Canadian Crimes increase 1950-1999 Linkhttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/iogzoCu1Wtd6HnzC0OxVhImNdhRBNncgA8tsp2h9-avin_QJNWzbdfeoozMjGBR7c6yoLdbHVRhVV8qSX-haA6EJNToRRzcLgz2jURCOBNCcZslfUV4 ( J13 ) http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-now-largest-federal-budget-item_654849.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ten-welfare-programs-cost-83-trillion-over-next-10-years_654910.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-equates-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=4582#.UPbXY2_uV8E http://www.vdare.com/articles/black-crime-the-immigration-dimension http://stopviolence.com/cj-knowledge.htm http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/06/05-poverty-families-haskins http://www.ajic.mb.ca/crime.pdf

chocolate for breakfast! cartoons on every channel! no bedtime! no teeth brushing!

Thanks, I forgot about that, I will remove it

Those are excellent questions – no, I don't believe that there is any genetic predisposition towards anything in the black community, I'm currently working on a much more detailed presentation about these issues, so I hope that will help.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIUwK8EMyA8] If not, please learn from this hero. Full Show: http://www.fdrurl.com/FDR2294 Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com

It sounds like these interactions change your authority as a father; your neice sees you being submissive to a bully, I would strongly advise against showing that, it teaches her that virtue loses. Be aware, though, that if you stand up for what's right without any support from your brother, you may end up ostracised. I would go with talking to your brother first.

NASA started out private? That's not my argument. My argument was that NASA recruited many of its original engineers from non-bureaucratic sources, and had about a generation of fair successes before the statist rot set in.