The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime:  The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

Hat tip to Ann Coulter.

And to quote her or Sowell… or Skinner for what it is worth… if you reward a behaviour it will continue.

While this link between illegitimacy and chronic welfare dependency now is better understood, policymakers also need to appreciate another strong and disturbing pattern evident in scholarly studies: the link between illegitimacy and violent crime and between the lack of parental attachment and violent crime. Without an understanding of the root causes of criminal behavior — how criminals are formed — Members of Congress and state legislators cannot understand why whole sectors of society, particularly in urban areas, are being torn apart by crime. And without that knowledge, sound policymaking is impossible.

A review of the empirical evidence in the professional literature of the social sciences gives policymakers an insight into the root causes of crime. Consider, for instance:

* Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.

* High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.

* State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.

* The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.

* The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.

* The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

On the other hand:

* Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.

* Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.

* Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married.

* The mother’s strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child’s best buffer against a life of crime.

* The father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime.

The scholarly evidence, in short, suggests that at the heart of the explosion of crime in America is the loss of the capacity of fathers and mothers to be responsible in caring for the children they bring into the world. This loss of love and guidance at the intimate levels of marriage and family has broad social consequences for children and for the wider community. The empirical evidence shows that too many young men and women from broken families tend to have a much weaker sense of connection with their neighborhood and are prone to exploit its members to satisfy their unmet needs or desires.

via The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime:  The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community.

The problem with not having kids – Featured – Macleans.ca

Go and read the article. Then the comments. This one reflects what I think…

And for those who need to know, I have three kids,amregretfully too old to have others. Love the grandkids…. but choosing to have kids is choosing hope. The ennui of the liberal mafir leads to a lack of energy, hope and progeny.

From the comments

Here’s what a typical liberal and Steyn critic brings to the picnic:

Robin: “Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are both gormless, contemptuous creatures.”

That’s the whole of his comment, a drive by spray of ignorance. First the de rigeur ad hominem attack that automatically disqualifies anyone from adult debate and relegates them to the schoolyard where juvenile taunts pass for “argument” .

Secondly, he can’t do even that right. Though Steyn and Levant have every reason to be contemptuous of such as Robin, the context shows that he/she presumably meant that they are contemptible.

Just a ten word comment that neatly demonstrates who the gormless one is.

However, that’s still preferable to david wheatley’s reams of verbiage to prove the same thing.

via The problem with not having kids – Featured – Macleans.ca.

Weather… and cat

2009-02-22-074842

It’s wet/ Rainshirt and nylon ahirt weather: the forecast says it will not get above ten degrees.

2009-02-22-075555Even this fellow is spending most of his time inside. The heat pump is on in the evening and morning, and it is still February:

In my view, it is unseasonally cool.

Klavan On The Culture » Misconstruing Miss Coulter

Politeness is not truth.

Ann Coulter is doubleplusnogoodthink in Obamaspeak. At time her nicotine filled New Yorker (sorry, Ann, but Connecticut is a superb of Gotham) grates, but as Andrew says she believes aplogising is wrong…

But the whole way liberals work is to redefine manners and morals in such a fashion that conservative common sense automatically becomes hateful. If you note that women and men are different, you’re misogynistic. If you denounce the destruction of marriage in black communities, you’re racist or moralistic. If you call for the defense of America against the world-wide Islamist menace, you’re a bigoted warmonger. If we take this garbage seriously even for an instant, we spend our whole lives playing catch-up, saying sorry, going on defense.

via Klavan On The Culture » Misconstruing Miss Coulter.

What the Obamaborg beleives is that if they say YAY it is alright and if htey say BOO it is wrong. This is very primitive ethics. The Philistines approved of sacrifiving children … the Inca of sacrificing entire villages. That is wrong. and no amount of cheering can make ir right. The Yay|Boo ethica position is discussed, along with nihil ad hominem, post hor propter hoc and nihil ad naturam as classical errors in logic that one should remove by the enf of one’s freshman year.

So why do they still exist? The answer was given, by Francis Schaeffer when he pointed that modernism was irrational and “modern man has both feet firmly in the air”. The post modernists took this to the logical extreme of fracturing meaning as successfully as Joyce fractcured English in Finnegan.

SInce most liberals are not prepared to look at the ancient knowledge — a position pointed to us by Falluci, Ratzenberger, Guinness and McIntyre (and although at least two of those are practising Christiaons, Falluci’s duscussion of Christian ethics leading to a foundation for secular nobility is a fuideline for those who queruloursly resist the Church) — they are left with irrationaily, emotion, or submission to a nonwestern theology. Most of the intellectuals are not able to cope with the rigors of Buddhism, and end up relying on feelings.

But we are mammals Our feelings are distorted by our physiology, by our circumstances. This philosophy has no consolation, except the primitve ability to project hatred to those outside the clibb. The intellectual has now become the slave of a demogogue: a person who will beleive anything

A special report on the new middle classes in emerging markets: Burgeoning bourgeoisie | The Economist

Excellent article, By the standards of the Obamaborg, of course, Marx was a Tory, as this quote attests.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.

via A special report on the new middle classes in emerging markets: Burgeoning bourgeoisie | The Economist.

The Obamaborg, however, detests the middle class. By claiming to be “for the people” but keeping the power of representing the people to themselves, they are making a new aristocracy, which (as in the ancien regieme) has a fundamental preference for barbarism, and holds the middle class  in contempt.

Pakistan car bomb kills five | The Australian

The militant arm of Islam feel that they are right and any means jusify the end. They have murdered five, because a local politican is (finally) enforcing the laws in the North East of Pakistan.

Which is a hellhole: many people from there have lost multiple friends from this kind of violence. It is not surprising that they prefer to live elsewhere where women and children can play and live safely.

Pray for Pakistan: may they reject their religious monoculture and allow freedom of speech and thought and the rule of law. May they protect the Christian minority. May they protect the Buddhist, agnositics and Hindu minorities. May they join the west — which I think will take divine intervention!

A CAR bomb killed five people and wounded 13 overnight near the home of a town councillor critical of militants in northwestern Pakistan, police officials said.

The device detonated near a wing used by Fahim-ur-Rehman to entertain guests in the suburban town of Bazidkhel, just outside the city of Peshawar, the officials said.

“Five people were killed and 13 wounded when a bomb planted in a car exploded outside the guest house of Fahim-ur-Rehman,” local police official Granullah Khan said.

He said earlier that three people were killed.

“The injured have been taken to a local hospital,” he said.

“Rehman was at home at the time of the blast but is safe,” police officer Liaqat Khan said.

Mr Rehman is strongly opposed to Taliban militants and was instrumental in setting up a local force last month to check militant activities.

Police said the blast destroyed a nearby primary school and two houses. Two outer walls of Rehman’s house were also damaged.

via Pakistan car bomb kills five | The Australian.

Join the Internet Blackout – Protest Against Guilt Upon Accusation Laws in NZ — Creative Freedom Foundation creativefreedom.org.nz

If one goes back and reads the information & notes that across the spectrum geeks are saying this is fundamentally unfair… to the point that Jordan Carter, Tizards (who kicked her party in the guts by forcing this through) electorate manager is agin it…

We need a fair copyright law. This is not it. John Key, fix this. Everyone else, check it out and sign the petition

Join The New Zealand Internet Blackout to protest against the Guilt Upon Accusation law ‘Section 92A’ that calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. This is due to come into effect on February 28th unless immediate action is taken by the National Party.

via Join the Internet Blackout – Protest Against Guilt Upon Accusation Laws in NZ — Creative Freedom Foundation creativefreedom.org.nz.

Yeah, I’m a calvanist. So nuh?

My Political Views
I am a right social libertarian
Right: 4.84, Libertarian: 3.88

Political Spectrum Quiz

I beleive the state should ensure that there are appropriate laws around property and safety of one’s live and limbs.
And try not to ally with others. I consider armed neutratlity the ideal position… but I don’t consider the citizenry of Godzone want all their adults from 20 to 50 to serve a month a year, which is what it would take.

Test is a bit US centric, but OK

Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated | smh.com.au

Homepaddock notes that the same thing is happening in NZ. What most Greens don’t understand is that Farmers have to respeck land in both countries because if they do not the fertility erodes.

Which is not profitable.

They aslo forget that humans are part of the ecosystem, that ecosystems change (with the climate — I am still amused about people beleiving that it was warmer when the dinosaurs roamed but recent warming is doe to us)

But, three chaers for Mr Sheehan, and the county should pay him his fine and expenses back in teturn for advising others to do what he did.

The Sheahans’ 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.

Do Victoria’s native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

Although Liam Sheahan’s 2002 decision to disregard planning laws and bulldoze 250 trees on his hilltop property hurt his family financially and emotionally, he believes it helped save them and their home on the weekend.

“The house is safe because we did all that,” he said as he pointed out his kitchen window to the clear ground where tall gum trees once cast a shadow on his house.

“We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two-kilometre area.”

via Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated | smh.com.au.

The Free World Fatwas Itself – Mark Steyn – The Corner on National Review Online

More Mark. He writes good. He writes true. Canuckstan (a small village situated somewhere in a cold part of Ontario) wants to ban him.

So let us think ungood thoughts and eat share our bacon bagels with the local Mullahcracy…

If young Muslim girls are being murdered in “honor killings”, the Chief Commissar of the Ontario “Human Rights” Commission will explain that they’re a “small commission” and they have to be able to prioritize and that Mark Steyn is a far greater threat to the Queen’s peace than killers of Muslim women.

But, if you don’t threaten violence, if you don’t issue death threats, if you don’t kill anyone, if you just make a movie or write a book or try to give a speech, the state will prosecute you, ban you or (in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali) force you to flee your own country.

In their appeasement of thugs, buffoons like Miliband and the Tory squishes across the House of Commons on the Opposition benches are making it very clear that the state accords more respect to violence than to debate. As I said to my interrogators in Ontario this week:

When you go down that road, all you do is lead to the situation that you have in, say, Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, you can’t start a newspaper and print what you think, so if you object to the House of Saud, the only thing you can do is blow stuff up.

In Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and elsewhere (as the Instaprof has often noted) the state is teaching a very dangerous lesson.

via The Free World Fatwas Itself – Mark Steyn – The Corner on National Review Online.

Because free speech cannot just be polite speech. And without humor and freedom of enquiry, there will be no new thought, no new ideas…

Oh I forgot. New ideas are notgoodthink. Must follow Islam.

No thanks. I prefer to have my integrity unsmirched and my soul intact.