At what price does freedom come? A report from the Information office of the State Council in Beijing that offers an analysis of the U.S., in obvious rebuttal to the U.S. analysis of conditions in other countries, including China and put out by our State Department, offers a harsh look at life in America. Here are some samplings...  "According to a report published in September 2008 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the country reported 1.4 million violent crimes, including 17,000 murders (The Washington Post, June 10, 2008), and 9.8 million property crimes (The World Journal, September 16, 2008) in 2007. Throughout 2007, the estimated number of robberies counted 445,125, a 7.5 percent rise over the last five years (The Washington Post, September 16, 2008). In cities with 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, the number of murders increased by 3.7 percent than 2006 (The Washington Post, June 10, 2008). In those with populations of 10,000 to 30,000, the number of violent crimes rose 2.4 percent than 2006 (The Washington Post, September 16, 2008). U.S. residents age 12 and older experienced an estimated 23 million crimes of violence or theft. The violent crime rate in 2007 was 20.7 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older; for property crimes it was 146.5 per 1,000 households. (Criminal Victimization, 2007, U.S. Department of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv07.htm). Among cities with relatively high violence and murders rates, New Orleans reported 95 murders per 100,000 population, Baltimore 45, Detroit 44, St. Louis 40, Philadelphia 27.8, Houston 16.2, and Dallas 16.1 (The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 10, 2008). In the United States, one murder is committed every 31 minutes, one rape in every 5.8 minutes, and one burglary every 14.5 seconds (The Washington Post, September 16, 2008)...  The frequent occurrences of gun killings were a serious threat to the lives of U.S. citizens. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 1.35 million high school students in 2007 were either threatened or injured with a weapon at least once on school property (United Press International, October 3, 2008). Young people represent an expanding proportion of all shooting victims, from 13 percent in 2002 to more than 21 percent in 2007. According to a Harvard University survey of high school students in 2006, a fifth of the 1,200 questioned in schools across Boston had witnessed a shooting. More than 40 percent believed it was easy to get a gun, and 28 percent said they did not feel safe on the bus or train (The Boston Globe, September 18, 2008). In the 2007-08 school year, a record 34 Chicago Public School students were killed (The Chicago Tribune, April 2, 2008). Within a week from February 7, 2008, the United States had seven shooting incidents, leading to 23 deaths and dozens of injuries. On March 27, 2008, five people in Georgia and Kentucky were shot dead (The Associated Press, March 27, 2008, March 28, 2008). On the night of April 18, nine shootings were reported in a period of less than two hours in Chicago (The Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2008). In November, Baltimore had 31 shootings (The Baltimore Sun, December 2, 2008). On December 24, 2008, a man dressed in a Santa costume shot at a Christmas Eve party at his ex-parents-in-law's house, causing eight deaths, three injuries and three missing persons (The China Press, December 26, 2008). Read the whole report HERE. If you take this report at face value, there is a hefty price for freedom paid for by the proliferation of crime in this country. Certainly for all our paranoia about terrorism, one need only look within to find a greater threat eroding away the liberties we crave. Will we ultimately all live behind shielded houses and barbed wire fencing to keep out the trash? Or will we all race out to buy even more guns so that we can shoot dead the criminals who violate our space and threaten our families? Look at the number of students threatened or injured with weapons at school in 2007 (1.3 million high school students) and ask yourself whether somewhat more control over our youth might not be a good thing?  America is a great country, one of endless potential even in the face of adversity. The problem is that at some point the structure upon which these freedoms were founded will erode away in trying to survive. Just look at the liberties taken during the last presidential administration as far as domestic wiretapping. Where were your freedoms? Was the threat outside greater than the threat within? And since 9/11? 2752 people died in the World Trade Center attack on 9/11/2001. The CDC estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries during the same year. There were about 16,000 deaths. Terrorism accounted for 5% of the deliberate gunshot injuries and 17% of the deaths. Food for thought. So what do we do with the information we get? Do we get mad at China for holding up the mirror? Do we boycott Chinese food? When I see this kind of data and the absolutism by which we defend our rights, I have to wonder why there is not more control on some areas. The argument of losing our Constitutional freedoms doesn't work in a country already weighted down by massive legislation for virtually everything. When was the last time you could do anything to your property - your house- without a permit? I am all for freedom and rights and I do not like my rights imposed upon any more than the next person. I am also for sanity and safety. Keeping my family safe should not be questionable in a country such as ours. Somewhere there is a happy medium, but it only comes at the expense of special interest groups losing their power over our government, and for citizens to demand change.  I posted this only to show one extreme to another. Yesterday I posted about Japanese schooling versus American schooling. Today I showed China's view of the U.S. based on our own statistics. Education and life are connected. The future of our society as a world leader is directly connected to what we do with our children, both in the manner of control we exert upon them, and the controls we exert upon their education. Destroy either of those two elements and within a generation you will be able to watch the fabric of our freedoms and our lifestyle unravel. This is a lot of information. Digest this or go turn on "The Girls Next Door," or "Montel" and leave all your worries behind! Ultimately the choice is yours, and yours, and yours, and yours.... MisterWriter |
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
THE POT MAY BE CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK BUT IF THE STATS FIT...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
as long as we continue to enable the so-called disadvantaged our societal woes will continue to grow. the concept of being held responsible for your own actions seems to be totally foreign to all too many. raising your children properly also seems to be a lost art. what is the definition of 'properly' in this context? 1) being held responsible for your as well as your children's actions, 2) teaching your children proper behaviour so our teachers don't have to and don't have to spend so much of their precious time trying to dicipline your out-of-control children, 3) teaching your children respect for theirselves, for others and for other's property/possessions, 4) teaching the concepts of honesty and honor. the list goes on but until and unless parents start being parents and stop being neglectful (or trying to be friends) these problems will persist. how do we as a society put an end to this? society as a whole needs to step up and yell as loud as humanly possible 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any longer'!
The unhinged "Blame Bush" crowd loves to bring up "domestic wiretapping," but hardly ever mention this was not a practice introduced under Bush. And you make it sound like the NSA is "spying" on every American. Warrantless surveillance, which is what I assume you're referring to, is for communications between foreign entities that are known or suspected terrorists and people in the US. Is that really such a problem for you? Are you really saying it would be better to just let these potentially dangerous and intelligence-rich communications go unmonitored? Aren't we supposed to now do our best to "connect the dots"?
And I'm never able to get an answer from the kooks...what are these liberties that you enjoyed prior to Satan (Bush) which have now been taken from you? What activity (name ONE) were you able to lawfully engage in before Dubya that now you can't? Here's the truth: The only people that have TRULY found measures such as the PATRIOT and Protect America acts to be a pain in the ass are terrorists and their sympathizers.
1:34pm - An interesting tirade. False, but interesting.
Here is what the New York Times wrote "WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands..." You can read that New York Times story HERE unless you plan on discrediting them as terrorist lovers or sympathizers as well.
From your response you did not read the posting. Use the word "you" carefully as you did not differentiate between "Me" and the source material. You obviously have some Bush-mania from the manner you have thrown "Satan" out there which was not in my posting at all.
The question upon which the post was based was not whether Bush was evil; rather it was about civil liberties and defining whether absolute freedom is a positive or a negative thing while using foreign source material to hold up a mirror. You apparently had an issue with that reflection.
As far as what we should do? Obviously this is a divided country when it comes to that answer, with as much passion and anger as you exhibited from many different groups. What is sad is that it should be an easy question for one country, Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all - to answer, don't you think?
So you link an ancient article which was one of many where the NY Times has published sensitive/classified information, then sarcastically ask if I think they are sympathizers, as if it's just so far-fetched. I can make some guesses as to the motivation for their far left leanings, but I can say it is a fact that they have published/leaked information beneficial to terrorists and enemies of the US. Oh, and did you catch the part buried many paragraphs down that tells of multiple Al Qaida plots foiled by intel gathered in this surveillance? Lichtau and Risen are the same idiots who publicized the successful program that used financial records to trace terrorist ties...it WAS a secret program until they told the entire world about it.
You're the one who said "just look at the liberties taken during the last presidential administration as far as domestic wiretapping." Again, what were these liberties? The liberty to talk to terrorists overseas and plot a nice fertilzer bomb?
While we're at it and since you're blaming this "loss of liberites" on Bush, do you also accuse Obama of ripping away these same liberties? When you answer, keep in mind that the Obama administration is not only doing exactly what Bush did as it pertains to "wiretaping," but is actually going further in their claims of what the government's "rights" are under this program.
As to the more germaine subject of the Chinese "assessment" of the US, I am not sure how you concluded that I take issue with it since I offered no commentary on it. I have no problems with it. Facts are facts. You may even be surprised to learn that I agree to a certain degree on some of what you said, particularly your comments which I "liberally" interpret to mean our Constitution is not a suicide pact. However, you do appear to be dancing around the edges of even more stringent gun control laws, which if I'm correct would be an issue we would probably be diametrically opposed.
Ah, a nicer post 3:32.
Nonetheless you are merely baiting a response. You stated that Bush did not start domestic wiretapping and I showed you up. I do call that taking liberties, but unlike your obvious partisanship response, my point was to ask whether terrorism represented a greater threat than the general brand gun violence within the country. That you elected to focus on Bush as opposed to the content of what I was using Bush to illustrate just wastes my time in rebuttal. I again draw your attention to the main point of the piece which was to pose a question. Where you get that I am pushing an ideology I do not know. It is, however, a good exercise to hold up both sides of a point rather than simply accepting one.
Given that the last administration has many years to make decisions and for us to be able to analyze the end result, I am watching Obama as well. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, and it may amuse you to know that while I do believe that conservative values are lacking, I refuse to be labelled a liberal or a conservative. While it seems most Republican conservatives will never have anything nice to say about Obama, the proof will be in his actions over time. Given that the last eight years did little to impress me, and obviously at least half the country, time will tell whether Obama screws it up or makes progress. He at least deserves that chance since he was elected. What say we return to this next year?
As for gun control laws - you have again leapt at an assumption about me. I recognize the right to bear arms. I object to morons having the arms! The thing about freedom is that is meters out good and bad. Just as I call for restraint on the conduct of students, I also believe that not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. We do restrict criminals already. How about requiring a class be taken on the proper use of a firearm? Some states do that. The right to bear arms does not mean that arms should be borne.
Now, I understand from your tone that this topic, exchange or the perception you have of this article or me really pisses you off. That comes across. Do me a favor; consider the function of this blog. It is a discussion. If I had an agenda to push, I would clearly state it, as I have done on many past posts. Thanks for your comments. I mean that!
As for showing me up...yes and no. Your original blog post said "domestic wiretapping." Domestic wiretaps greatly increased under Clinton from what occurred during Bush I. Clinton also authroized warrantless searches. Past presidents have authorized domestic wiretapping. However, I did assume you meant WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING, so yes, in that regard you showed me up. But every president since FISA has asserted they have the inherent power to order warrantless wiretaps. And the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review affirmed that stance in their August 2008 decision (which was not released until January 2009).
Let me press on to gun control. Now you seem to be assigning to me the ultra-libertarian view that everyone should be able to get a gun. I'm all for "sensible" gun control, e.g. can't be crazy and/or a criminal and it must be registered. By the same token, I also believe that a CCW permit should be given to ANYONE that can satisfy OBJECTIVE criteria such as not insane, pass a handgun safety course, etc. In other words, CA should be a "Shall Issue" state.
I am not a Republican. But I am unapologetically conservative. I don't hate Obama, and just as I always strive to do, will give credit when it's due. And while I did not vote for Bill Clinton, I actually thought he did a decent job as president, his "proclivities" notwithstanding.
I'm also not pissed off. I chose to hone in on something you said...something which you must know is a rather worn phrase that gets thrown out with the apparent belief that it is accepted as truth. You still claim a loss of "liberties," yet while it admittedly may be due to thickheadedness, I still do not see where you or others who repeat the claim have proved your case.
Sometimes I find that the post are loud and do not always stick to the point.
As a parent and some one that has worked with children in ALL types of family settings I think the government gets to involved in saying how we should handle our children's behavior.
They feel they have this right for 2 reasons. 1) Because they think they run everything. 2) because we as parents have not taken the responsibility to raise our own children.
We look at teachers to educate them when we should be the first part of that.
We look at our community to teach them tolerance when we should practice it ourselves.
We assume that our children will grow out of their bad behaviors. "They wont!"
I have seen students spit on and threaten their teachers. In another country that would be harshly paddled (a little harsh). In the US those same children's parents can place a suit against the school if the teacher speaks out or defends themselves.
There is difference in disadvantaged and LAZY.
We have become LAZY in everything from our jobs to raising our own children.
We are to good to work at McDonald's so we live off welfare. We are to busy texting and watching TV to read a book to our children. It is much easier to tell your child to learn form their mistakes than it is to watch them and tell them why it is a bad choice.
Why teach your child respect for themselves if you do not know how to be respectful?
Now that we do not care and are to Lazy the government is footing the bill. Just like any good parent would say. "If you live under our roof you go by our rules".
"Our rule is not treat others as they treat you but Love others the way you WANT to be loved."
If you do not want the government to run your life stop expecting them to feed you.
I do realize there are exceptions to the rule. Please do not take offense.
It is the people that CAN get a job but wont, the law suit people, the insurance stealing, drug attics, perverts, and all the others that are SUCKING our system dry. These are the people our children see getting the free ride and we leave them alone to see this on TV and on the streets because we are to wrapped up in our OWN lives.
This has nothing to do with Bush, Obama, or George Washington it has to do with us.
If you want you child to be a hard working respectable young man/woman then watch you mouth and what you say. Get off you Cell. Take the hard road and let them walk on the rocks but help them stay off the sharp ones. DO NOT give them that candy or toy say NO! Tell them to study, study with them, make them clean their room, do not allow them to watch movies where people are disrespectful, make them read a book or back cookies for a nursing home. They will live and learn from YOU.
When you are in charge the government will be unable to take over the control.
LOVE your children that's why you had them.lar
"The Baby Bird in the nest that chirps the loudest gets the worm"
How much are you getting?
4:40 Anon,
You did hone in... however I feel that what was a genuine question on my part about the mirror reflected has turned into a partisan discussion. It is not about conservatism. Let's just leave it at that because I think we've made all the progress we can. Remember, as far as "showing you up" that this is my blog; I have no need to show you or anyone up. These are my opinions and my postings. And as the header on the page says, it is designed to question. If I had the answers I'd be getting paid for this.
5:01pm, you feel the government has too much control. You point out that solving these issues falls upon the parent. I suggest that the parents do not fulfill their obligation in this regard. I do not like government telling me what I can and cannot do to my child. When faced with a society that is crumbling because parents are not stepping up to the plate, I guess government steps in. Or perhaps it is the aim of government to run as a socialistic system under the banner of democracy. Who knows.
And 5:06 - Ha! Ain't no worms left! Ain't got much chirp left either!
You are right as long as the parents do not feel their obligations the government will continue to feel they can. Was this not the reason we separated ourselves during the REVALUATION?
Double taxed and unable to choose the direction of our own children.
It all comes back to to many people allowing and setting back thinking some one else will take care of the problem?
Post a Comment