BattleCry and Teenage Brainwashing

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14021621/teenage_holy_war/1

This is how you enlist in the Army of God: First come the fireworks and the prayers, and then 4,000 kids scream, "We won't be silent anymore!" Then the kids drop to their knees, still but for the weeping and regrets of fifteen-year-olds. The lights in the Cleveland arena fade to blue, and a man on the stage whispers to them about sin and love and the Father-God. They rise, heartened; the crowd, en masse, swears off "harlots and adultery"; the twenty-one-year-old MC twitches taut a chain across the ass of her skintight red jeans and summons the followers to show off their best dance moves for God. "Gimme what you got!" she shouts. They dance -- hip-hop, tap, toe and pelvic thrusting. Then they're ready. They're about to accept "the mark of a warrior," explains Ron Luce, commander in chief of BattleCry, the most furious youth crusade since young sinners in the hands of an angry God flogged themselves with shame in eighteenth-century New England. Nearly three centuries later, these 4,000 teens are about to become "branded by God." It's like getting your head shaved when you join the Marines, Luce says, only the kids get to keep their hair. His assistants roll out a cowhide draped over a sawhorse, and Luce presses red-hot iron into the dead flesh, projecting a close-up of sizzling cow skin on giant movie screens above the stage.

"When you enlist in the military, there's a code of honor," Luce preaches, "same as being a follower of Christ." His Christian code requires a "wartime mentality": a "survival orientation" and a readiness to face "real enemies." The queers and communists, feminists and Muslims, to be sure, but also the entire American cultural apparatus of marketing and merchandising, the "techno-terrorists" of mass media, doing to the morality of a generation what Osama bin Laden did to the Twin Towers. "Just as the events of September 11th, 2001, permanently changed our perspective on the world," Luce writes, "so we ought to be awakened to the alarming influence of today's culture terrorists. They are wealthy, they are smart, and they are real."

Luce is forty-five, his brown hair floppy, his lips pouty. On the screens above the stage, his green eyes blink furiously. "The devil hates us," he exhorts, "and we gotta be ready to fight and not be these passive little lukewarm, namby-pamby, kum-ba-yah, thumb-sucking babies that call themselves Christians. Jesus? He got mad!" Luce considers most evangelicals too soft, too ready to pass off as piety their preference for a bland suburban lifestyle. He hates what he sees as the weakness of "accepting" Christ, of "trusting" the Lord. "I want an attacking church!" he shouts, his normally smooth tones raw and desperate and alarming. He isn't just looking for followers -- he wants "stalkers" who'll bring a criminal passion to their pursuit of godliness.

Cue Christian metal on the mammoth screens flanking the stage: "Frontline," a music video produced at Luce's Honor Academy in east Texas for the band Pillar. It opens with a broken guitar magically reassembling itself, a redemptive reversal of four decades of rock & roll nihilism. Then comes the gospel: "Everybody with your fist raised high/Let me hear your battle cry!"

And thats all before the article REALLY gets going.


This is just sick, what this asshole is doing. Sick and downright scary.

Great. Just great.

I remember my Western Civilization teacher - a very bright Asian - made a point that stuck with me all these years. He made the point that Christianity was able to gain a foothold and spread so fast in the acient world because, in his words, it was a religion of poverty and suffering and therefore appealed to the poor and the suffering.

Now, it would appear, that it has gained a foothold and spreading so fast in the modern world because it is a religion of angst. Think about it. All that teen angst we've been hearing about since the dawn of the 1990s starting with the so-called Gen X has now been given purpose and focus.

Someone has finally come along and figured out how to take all that directionless and, therefore, self-cancelling (up to this point anyway) destructive energy that defies diagnosis and treatment since it has long since become disconnected from its source and give it life, purpose and meaning.

Normally, teen angst just gives way to the demands of living a peer-approved life in a modern world - school, money, sex, cars, work, sex and beer. And sex.

But what was once a self-extinguishing rumbling that would just get crowded out by hedonistic pursuits is now being imbibed with attributes of much deeper concern: self-awareness, purpose, conviction and not just the will to survive but a desire to propogate and extinguish its opposite.

Not good this is.

Really, tho there's nothing to worry about. Yes, its an awful lot of energy but as long as there isn't one person who has enough control over it to decide where or upon what to direct it then its not a concern.

I wonder what the guy meant by "Father-God"? Can't say I've heard that term used before but it does seem vaguely familiar...

Beestie;338059 wrote:

I wonder what the guy meant by "Father-God"? Can't say I've heard that term used before but it does seem vaguely familiar...

It seems like there is a growing movement in "Christianity" to distance themselves from the nurturing, feminine side of God, It makes sense that folks raised to submit to authority would seek out authority in a scarey (to them) free society. Biologically we want survival, reproduction, and a general sense of well-being, this nut gives them all of those things.

Is it just me or does this sound a lot like the recruiting methods of the KKK and the Nazi party?

The problem with harnessing the power of disaffected youths is that in the span of just a few years they will completely change who they are and what they believe, probably more than once, and you'll have to keep infusing fresh, younger angst just to keep things going.

"It's just a phase."

Sheldonrs;338102 wrote:

Is it just me or does this sound a lot like the recruiting methods of the KKK and the [COLOR=navy]Nazi party[/COLOR]?

Ding, ding, ding. That is what Iwas alluding to with the "father-God/Fatherland" question.

Hitler did well keeping recruits because the economy tanked. Let's root for full employment.

It seems like there is a growing movement in "Christianity" to distance themselves from the nurturing, feminine side of God

First of all, don't make broad generalizations because of what a few televangelists and fundamentalist Christians are shouting. As a Christian myself I would say this is the FARTHEST thing from the message of Jesus. This is old-testament fire and brimstone bullcrap.

Secondly, it seems strange to me that you refer to God's feminine side. As far as I'm concerned God never spoke of God's gender. Sounds like some Da'Vinci nonsense to me.

This guy is taking advantage of kids and needs to be stopped.

Immediately.

That's why I put Christanity in quotes. It isn't Christian or at least a form I recognize. I'm a Catholic, my God is all encompassing. We were made in his image, all of us male and female alike. I was speaking of attributes, loving creator etc..., of God not actual gender. These guys are focused on the God who drowned Pharoh's charioteers, a defender or destroyer. They ignore the bigger picture. I didn't say the muscular Christ movement was a major part of the faith, but it exists and we ignore this stuff at our own peril.

Having already firmly established my brown nosing sycophantic minion-ocity, I am unafraid to say that Griff is right, *again*. And I am relieved and encouraged to hear discussions about Christian values presented in a moderate voice. I'm not deef, m'kay? I'm not stupid. The shouting and the jumbo-tron, they're distractions. Make your point and let it stand. I'm more interested in the man behind the curtain, than the image on the screen.

I'm just sick of fundamentalists distorting the principles of their respective faiths.

If I seemed combative I'm sorry.

This is perfect... I don't even have to say it.
The mask is off.

I don't find this guy nearly as scary as the fact that he has such a large and willing pool to recruit from. Kids that were raised on video games, the internet and TV as surrogate parents.

I'm not condemning the electronic world but the parents that abdicate the raising of their children to electronic world. I wonder how many parents know, where the kids at this event, are or what's happening there?

Oh, the kids went to some religious thing at the stadium, that should safe enough....bridge!

If not complex enough, apparently, an evangelical Christian group is distributing 700,000 DVDs that disparaged Mormons. How can one 'moral' evangelical Christian organization attack another politically active Christian movement?

Replicated again, when a religion goes beyond a relationship between one and one's god, then satanism (in its many forms including religious wars, hate, pedophilia, torture to 'save' another from himself, etc) is possible and justified.

Why does the most religious western nation, with a leader clearly elected by the most religious, now advocate international kidnapping, "Pearl Harboring" of a sovereign nation, outright lying justified by the agenda, suspension of Constitutional rights, perversion of science, imprisonment without judicial review, and torture. This is what happens when religion is anything but a relationship between one and his god. Notice the more secular nations don’t kid off their kids in school – and decide to do nothing. Even torture is now becoming more acceptable – demonstrated by how a TV show called ‘24’ is brainwashing the young. This is what the most extremist religious advocate?

Religious extremists even swore on a bible to tell the truth in a PA Federal Court – and then outrightly lied. Now an evangelical group in NY distributes 700,000 DVDs to promote hate of Mormon? Just another reason why 'good' nations must keep politics and religion separate.

I don’t see religious people up in arms about how corrupt their peers really are. “A man who marries outside his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law.” I did not see religious people rising up to condemn that religious leader for his statements of hate.

I did not see religious people rising up to condemn that religious leader for his statements of hate.

How would you suggest they do that without becoming what they are condemning?

And if their faith only concerns their God and themselves, why should they bother?

1. I think we need that hitler smiley added to the list.

2. Rolling Stone has what I would consider an anti-religious stance, and that colors the articles that they run. This story seems to run along the same lines as the documentary Jesus Camp ... information gets cherry-picked to evoke a negative response.

I may have more to say after I read the article in it's entirety.

xoxoxoBruce;338300 wrote:

How would you suggest they do that without becoming what they are condemning?

And if their faith only concerns their God and themselves, why should they bother?

Good question. But then number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing. As are the number of Americans who outrightly deny Darwinism and want Genesis to be taught in school science (as The Economist noted this week). That does not sound like good Christians to me. That sounds like Chistians who endorse satanism in religion.

He is trying his hardest to keep kids from being intelligent, rational thinkers because that is what threatens him and his peers.
They are the future and he wants them to be as far from who he thinks of as a threat. He is using any tactic he can to make that happen.
Just that, nothing else.

Or, perhaps he cares about them personally... there is your other option, LOL!

tw;338313 wrote:

Good question. But then number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing. As are the number of Americans who outrightly deny Darwinism and want Genesis to be taught in school science (as The Economist noted this week). That does not sound like good Christians to me. That sounds like Chistians who endorse satanism in religion.

How do you make the leap from not believing Darwin to endorsing Satanism? Just because these people don't understand the sciences of geology, anthropology, ad infinitum doesn't make them Satanists, just wrong.

rkzenrage wrote:

snip~ Or, perhaps he cares about them personally ~snip

He's clearly a snake oil salesman, a charlatan, that's using religion for personal gain. Not a novel idea but no less despicable.

xoxoxoBruce;338377 wrote:

How do you make the leap from not believing Darwin to endorsing Satanism? Just because these people don't understand the sciences of geology, anthropology, ad infinitum doesn't make them Satanists, just wrong.

Clearly not what I said, is it. Satanism - imposing one's religion on others.

Is that the only definition? You tell me? I've already posted this that you did not understand.

Number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing. Nothing about geology, anthropology, etc was posted. Why are you jumping to such conclusions?

Darwin has nothing to do with religion. Why then do extremist religious leaders attack Darwinism when it does not affect and is irrelevant to religion? Because Darwin is not irrelevant when religion is to be imposed on all others. Islamic Fundamentalism or Christian extremists. Both share a common agenda. Impose religion on all others. That is an example of satanism. Why is that so difficult, Bruce?

What scares me the most are the descriptions of his "interns" at his "school", later on in the article.

They're brainwashed, mindless drones worked up into a religious frenzy for blood - the blood of everyone who isn't one of them, including other less-crazy Christians.

Radical Christians are no different than radical Muslims.

Except for that part where radical Christians are not killing anyone in large numbers.

Clodfobble;338418 wrote:

Except for that part where radical Christians are not killing anyone in large numbers.

Well not recently anyway... :D

They would if they could get away with it.

Thats why I fear BattleCry. I fear Ron Luce. I fear his private child army.

wolf;338306 wrote:

1. I think we need that hitler smiley added to the list.

Cool. I actually made that yesterday. I won't tell you which smiley I started with to morph into Dolph.

rkzenrage;338285 wrote:

This is perfect... I don't even have to say it.

It is better when you don't. I for one don't take you seriously on this topic anymore.

tw;338386 wrote:

Clearly not what I said, is it.

Yes it is

snip~ I've already posted this that you did not understand.

Number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing. Nothing about geology, anthropology, etc was posted. Why are you jumping to such conclusions?

No, you posted

But then number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing.
As are the number of Americans who outrightly deny Darwinism and want Genesis to be taught in school science (as The Economist noted this week).
That does not sound like good Christians to me.
That sounds like Chistians who endorse satanism in religion.

You posted those four sentences, in that order, nothing in between. Are you saying those are four independent thoughts that are not related to each other, but posted together as if they were a chain of thought? Or are you just trying to lie your way out... again?

xoxoxoBruce;338687 wrote:

You posted those four sentences, in that order, nothing in between. Are you saying those are four independent thoughts that are not related to each other, but posted together as if they were a chain of thought?

Darwin has nothing to do with religion. Why then do extremist religious leaders attack Darwinism when it does not affect and is irrelevant to their religion? Because Darwin is not irrelevant when religion must be imposed on all others - religious extremism. Islamic Fundamentalism or Christian extremists. Both share a common agenda. Impose religion on all others.

Numbers of extremist religious is increasing - not diminishing. Extremists are increasingly attacking Darwinism by imposing their religious beliefs even on science - to force their parables upon all others. Does that sound like a 'good Christian' (or 'good Muslim')? Of course not. Once religion is anything more than a relationship between man and his god - satanism.

xoxoxoBruce - its not complex. But it is complex enough so that one can twist it only to argue. Which is it? Are you really so confused by a simple concept? Do you only want to argue? Or do you advocate religious extremism - the imposition of religion on all other people?

tw;338763 wrote:

Darwin has nothing to do with religion. Why then do extremist religious leaders attack Darwinism when it does not affect and is irrelevant to their religion? Because Darwin is not irrelevant when religion must be imposed on all others - religious extremism. Islamic Fundamentalism or Christian extremists. Both share a common agenda. Impose religion on all others.

Numbers of extremist religious is increasing - not diminishing. Extremists are increasingly attacking Darwinism by imposing their religious beliefs even on science - to force their parables upon all others. Does that sound like a 'good Christian' (or 'good Muslim')? Of course not. Once religion is anything more than a relationship between man and his god - satanism.

xoxoxoBruce - its not complex. But it is complex enough so that one can twist it only to argue. Which is it? Are you really so confused by a simple concept? Do you only want to argue? Or do you advocate religious extremism - the imposition of religion on all other people?

You want to make a simple question personal, huh? Well Tommy boy I can get just as personal as you can.
You keep trying to avoid simple questions by ridiculing me and drawing attention away from the fact you haven't got any answers, just criticism, but that's not going to work because I'm going to keep asking the questions. You think people are fooled by your bullshit but they see right through you. Get used to it, liar.

xoxoxoBruce;338849 wrote:

You keep trying to avoid simple questions by ridiculing me and drawing attention away from the fact you haven't got any answers,

Bruce - are you OK. You are starting to sound like you are about to have a melt down. The answer is there: the British solution - step one and step two. Its just not that difficult. Are you alright? Previously I was only joking about a need for coffee. Now I am becoming a little concerned. Are you alright?

Don't play games with me you patronizing cocksucker, this thread has nothing to do with the British.

Tw never has answers -- he's incapable of being constructive, even if you gave him two hacks of two-by-four studs and a hammer.

His English is breaking down in his excitement, too. Outright is already an adverb -- it happens not to change from its adjectival form. The -ly is superfluous. His definition and usage of Satanism, capital S and all, will come as a surprise to the COS, from what I read in the very occasional newsletters of theirs I've seen. These show the ruminations of a creepy lot of low-end-terroristic bandits, with their "victimize outsiders else they'll victimize you" mindset. They don't show even any inclination to proselytize, let alone actual proselytizing. Nor, I think, do they show the nerve to take slaves.

I expect his lack of answers, it's an ongoing style. But responding with personal attacks and outright lies to fair and legitimate questions, will never go unanswered.

Clodfobble;338418 wrote:

Except for that part where radical Christians are not killing anyone in large numbers.

"The Lord told me to invade Iraq"

xoxoxoBruce;339010 wrote:

I expect his lack of answers, it's an ongoing style. But responding with personal attacks and outright lies to fair and legitimate questions, will never go unanswered.

Personal attacks of repeated profanity are posted by xoxoxoBruce. His personal insult - posts also devoid of facts - has become so routine that I ask again if xoxoxoBruce is OK.

Granted, the nation's emotional state - complete with schoolyard massacres that have become routine - is rather black and only becoming worse. This attitude was America when another president routinely lied, attacked sovereign nations "Pearl Harbor" style, violent crime increased, ignore what "Wise Men" said, act only for a poltical agenda and at the expense of America, and American soldiers were sacrficed so as to massacre the yellow man. Deja vue Nam. Some can become so emotionally downtrodden as to become profane. Is xoxoxoBruce alright? Intelligent and stable people do not post profanity repeatedly for personal insult.

Actually, violent crime is down in the US and decreasing. It is just being reported more.

rkzenrage;339031 wrote:

Actually, violent crime is down in the US and decreasing. It is just being reported more.

So that explains a murder a day in Philadelphia? Clearly daily murders were once common in Philly - when Philly had a larger population? No wonder there is so much gun play in one area that I frequently visit - and I have seen none. So that shootout right across the street that involved hundreds of rounds fired by the suspect - that really did not happen? Gun fire in many American cities is now so routine that kids in school can identify the weapons by sound. So that was true 20 and 30 years ago because violent crime was really just as high then?

Yes, numbers might be fudged. Mexico is probably more violent than the numbers say. But in Philly, gun numbers have increased, and violence has increased. Are you saying the number of schoolyard massacres is down? So pervasive is violence in Philly that recruiting cops who get paid more in Philly has become difficult. Clearly the increase in guns and gun trafficing has reduced vioent death numbers because Philly was killing more than one a day 20 years ago when crime in general was more frequent?

tw;339030 wrote:

Personal attacks of repeated profanity are posted by xoxoxoBruce. His personal insult - posts also devoid of facts - has become so routine that I ask again if xoxoxoBruce is OK.

I post the way I speak and nobody is washing my mouth out with soap, so fuck you, tommy boy. You haven't a clue what personal attacks really are.

If you don't have the intelligence to answer a simple question about what you posted, I guess you must have just copied it out of a forum or magazine article. Otherwise you would know the thinking behind the the statements and be able to clarify them without just posting parroted crap.

Because you haven't a clue what your posting about you try to pull a, hey look a bird, diversion. Going off on tangents, belittling the poster that questions your posts, even if they are not disagreeing, but asking for clarification.

If the economist, that patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication, isn't it? Anyway, if it ceased publication, you would dry up and blow away. Even though most parrots live a long time, without feed they die, just as your online persona would without those Brits supplying your posts.
They'd find you in an alley babbling about MBAs and power supplies.

If you don't want to answer questions about your posts just footnote whoever made the original statement and we'll question them. That way you can just cruise along fat, dumb and happy, acting smug and superior, not knowing everyone is laughing at you.

xoxoxoBruce;339075 wrote:

I post the way I speak and nobody is washing my mouth out with soap, so fuck you, tommy boy. You haven't a clue what personal attacks really are.
....
If the economist, that patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication, isn't it? Anyway, if it ceased publication, you would dry up and blow away.

The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits. And more profanity. xoxoxoBruce now says he routinely used profanity. I doubt it. But it is now amusing how few short hair I need pull to set him off.

Bruce - did you notice some of these hairs are turning grey. Maybe you should start taking viagra?

Your doubts carry as much weight as your posts, which is nothing.
And still we have, look a birdie, from the parrot. Nothing substantial to be found anywhere to copy here, I guess. Maybe Monday morning someone will step up and post something he can copy.

rkzenrage;339031 wrote:

Actually, violent crime is down in the US and decreasing. It is just being reported more.

Actually, RK, I would argue that in some areas violent crime is so high it isn't being reported at all.

%80 of the US live in or near cities. I cannot find the percentage who specifically live in cities, but I believe that many crimes in cities go unreported. We hear about the increase in the homicide rate, but for every homicide, how many other violent crimes are also on the rise?

Rich, you live close to two cities, are you afraid to go outside?

richlevy;339108 wrote:

Actually, RK, I would argue that in some areas violent crime is so high it isn't being reported at all.

%80 of the US live in or near cities. I cannot find the percentage who specifically live in cities, but I believe that many crimes in cities go unreported. We hear about the increase in the homicide rate, but for every homicide, how many other violent crimes are also on the rise?

Wasn't there an article here about how a rappers says reporting crime is considered breaking a social norm (no idea if it is true or not but I doubt it) here a week or so ago?

As long as we allow portions of the population to carry that type of attitude we will have rampant violent crime. However, every time someone takes a serious stab at doing something about it it's portrayed as an assault on a minority culture or something. :headshake

Beestie;338663 wrote:

Cool. I actually made that yesterday. I won't tell you which smiley I started with to morph into Dolph.

It was the village people one, wasn't it?

wolf;339355 wrote:

It was the village people one, wasn't it?

The moustache was just too perfect. Had to lose the hat and push the hairline back a bit and boom! there he was. Never woulda believed who was hiding out under all that if I hadn't seen it for myself.

This graph shows a sharp drop-off in violent crime since 1993.



This graph shows the homicide victimization rate for European and African Americans, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

These trends have continued in the last years at an even more drastic decline.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051020-5461.html

Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-09-crime_x.htm
09/09/2002 - Updated 12:53 AM ET
Violent crime rate in America continues steep declineWASHINGTON — The number of people who were victims of all violent crimes except murder fell by 9% in 2001, sending the crime rate to its lowest level since it was first tracked in 1973, the government reported Sunday. The decline was due primarily to a record low number of reported assaults, the most common form of violent crime.
The drop is detailed in the 2001 National Crime Victimization Survey, which is based on interviews with victims and thus does not include murder. The Bureau of Justice Statistics report was obtained Sunday by The Associated Press in advance of its release this week.

Preliminary figures from another FBI report — gleaned from more than 17,000 city, county and state law enforcement agencies and released in June — reflected an increase in murders of 3.1% in 2001.

Experts discussing the new report on violent crime said the decrease, part of a decade-long trend, is the result primarily of the strong economy in the 1990s and the prevalence of tougher sentencing laws.

"Despite our perceptions, based on television or chats around the water-cooler, it is clear crime is on the decline in a significant way and has been for some years now," said Ralph Myers, a criminologist at Stanford University.

"When people have jobs and poor neighborhoods improve, crime goes down," Myers said. "Crime also has been impacted by the implementation of tough sentencing laws at the end of the 1980s."

Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%.

The new report says that between 2000 and 2001, the number of people who reported they were victims of violent crime fell from about 28 per 1,000 to about 25 per 1,000, a 10% drop. The number of people reporting violent crimes fell from 6,323,000 in 2000 to 5,744,000 in 2001.

Only about half of the violent crimes reported in the survey were reported to police.

The report showed a 10% decrease in the violent crime rate for whites. It also included an 11.6% decrease for blacks and a 3.9% increase for Hispanics, but the report gave neither of those figures the highest grade of confidence because of analytical formulas that suggest they could be flawed.

Assault was down 10%, but victim reports reflected a 13% increase in injuries.

The effect of tougher sentencing laws can best be seen in the drop in the rate at which people in the United States are assaulted, said Bruce Fenmore, a criminal statistician at the Institute for Crime and Punishment, a Chicago-based think tank.

"There is overwhelming evidence that people who commit assaults do it as a general course of their affairs," Fenmore said. "Putting those people behind bars drops the rate."

The rate at which criminals used guns to accomplish their crimes held steady, about 26%.

Victims of rape and assault were the least likely (7%) to face an armed offender, while robbery victims were the most likely (55%).

Rape fell 8%, and sexual assaults — which include verbal threats and fondling — fell 20%. About half the women who reported rapes said the perpetrator was a friend or acquaintance. The rate at which women reported rape to the police fell 19% in 2001.

The overall property crime rate fell 6% between 2000 and 2001 because of a 6.3% decrease in theft and a 9.7% decrease in household burglaries.

The car theft rate was up 7%, reflecting a jump from 937,000 car thefts in 2000 to 1,009,000 in 2001.

Teenagers seemed less likely to be victims of violent crime. The crime rate against those between ages 16 and 19 fell 13.2%.

Crime also fell in each of the regions of the United States but showed the most dramatic decline, 19.7%, in the Midwest.

The decline also was felt in urban, suburban and rural areas. The rate of violence experienced by suburbanites fell 14%. In urban and rural areas, the rate fell 5.4% and 10.6%, respectively.

The preliminary summary of the report did not include a state-by-state breakdown.

Crime trends related to personal income also shifted.

Americans making less than $7,500 a year experienced a drop in the violent crime rate of about 23%. Those making $75,000 or more saw a 17% decrease. Most in between saw little change.

Who's the real victim? - television coverage of violent crime -
Column USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), July, 1994 by Joe Saltzman

It has been an American tradition to admire the outlaw, the Western gunslinger, the young couple who rob banks, and the citizen vigilante. Today, television coverage of news events that eventually end up in court has created a new kind of hero for the 1990s - the abused victim who takes the law into his or her own hands in a quest for personal justice.

Juries, and a public fired up by massive courtroom TV coverage of sensational trials, have concluded that a woman who cut off her husband's penis or two brothers who murdered their parents had good reasons to do so. The victims of these criminal acts gradually come to be held responsible for being attacked, and the persons committing the crimes slowly emerge as victims themselves.

It is easy to see how this has happened. Television news usually is limited to covering an event after it has occurred. With rare exceptions, the coverage of a breaking news story consists of interviews with eyewitnesses and officials, pictures of the scene of the crime, and a reporter summing up what has happened and trying to figure out what will happen next.

In a murder, for instance, all that remains of the victim is a covered body and some old photographs. This material is supplemented with statements from survivors who knew and cared about the victim. The accused murderer occasionally is seen being arrested or, more often, either going to court, coming from it, or appearing in the courtroom. Statements about the alleged killer come from surprised friends, relatives, and neighbors.

Even if victims are alive and well, the focus shifts from them to the accused, who, if counseled properly, usually are apologetic for what has happened. Their lawyers, struggling to get their clients the best deal possible, often go into the attacker's personal history to paint a picture that consists of deprivation, abuse, and temporary insanity. Slowly, the original victim is forgotten and the accused - a human being crying out to be understood - becomes a more sympathetic victim trying to set things right.

This process happens daily in our judicial system, whether or not a camera is in the courtroom. Juries, listening to lengthy testimony about the individual accused of the crime, are persuaded to be sympathetic to that person's plight. A rape trial ends up being a horrible ordeal for most women, since attorneys try to create the impression that the criminal act of rape is just a misunderstanding. The victim, especially an attractive woman with no visible bruises, seldom finds justice in the American courts. She is painted as the seducer, someone with loose morals, someone who didn't say no. There is confusion over who is really the victim and who is the perpetrator.

Television magnifies the process by extending it to a mass electronic audience. When the news first was heard that two brothers shot their father dead, then reloaded to finish off their wounded mother, the reaction was immediate: horror and repulsion. Yet, as the details became more and more familiar, the acts themselves became less appalling in the public mind.

This is the first step in the rehabilitation of the accused's image. The crime becomes less repugnant. Slowly, the reasons for the crime and, if possible, contrition for the act itself take over. The parents' disfigured bodies, never shown on TV because of taste and censorship, fade into the background, replaced by their two sons' tearful faces. They are not confessed murderers. They are two boys who couldn't take it any more, two sons trying to do everything possible to prevent their parents from committing more acts of cruelty.

If television news and courtroom TV continue to cover such events, it would be helpful to emphasize the victim's side of the story with whatever it takes to graphically keep the accused from dominating the trial coverage. This happened in the Rodney King case when the videotape of police officers beating him into submission was played over and over, in slow motion, in freeze frames, and in an enhanced version. The audience watching never forgot what the police did and, no matter what was said in court, the images on that tape remained firm in the public consciousness. When the accused officers were acquitted, a public outcry resulted in a new trial and convictions.

What faded from view were the events that transpired before the video camera was turned on. Few were swayed by the police testimony that King had been under the influence of alcohol and had led the cops on a chase through city streets. The video tape of King being unmercifully beaten by public servants dominated the day. The accused received little public sympathy.

Most of the time, however, there is no videotape of the victim's pain and suffering - no collective memory of the sadistic attack, the knife or bullets ripping through flesh, the blood and gore, or the indelible images of the crime itself. The grisly aftermath of a murder is considered too gruesome for public consumption, so even the victim's last testimony of the crime itself is seldom seen by the viewers. In the abstract, the public cry is for vengeance and retribution. Three strikes and you are out of circulation. But, as we get to intimately know the accused, we slowly turn to look at them sympathetically. Instead of seeing the monster, we see another victim and are confused. And in that confusion, we are reluctant to punish the accused, even one who already has confessed to the most hideous of crimes.
Television didn't create this situation, but it has the power to turn almost any crime into this kind of public spectacle. The next time this happens, it would be helpful if the crime and the true victim weren't pushed into the background. To leave out the obscenity of the crime is to create a situation where accused killers are given more than the benefit of the doubt. They are given a chance to paint their own sympathetic public images at the expense of the victims they slaughtered.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

[YOUTUBE]p-fbcy1tRoA[/YOUTUBE]

rkzenrage;339542 wrote:

This graph shows a sharp drop-off in violent crime since 1993.



This graph shows the homicide victimization rate for European and African Americans, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Why do the graphs for black homicides and violent crime looks so similar?
Somethin's funky with those graphs.

Lots of black on black crime in the US... nothin' new.

tw;339082 wrote:

The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits.

The Economist is not an Anti-American publication.:rolleyes:

Just another one of tw's lies.

tw, on what do you base that statement?

rkzenrage;340507 wrote:

tw, on what do you base that statement?

Which statements?

The "Economist" stuff actually came from Bruce initially.

xoxoxoBruce;339075 wrote:

If the economist, that patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication, isn't it? Anyway, if it ceased publication, you would dry up and blow away. Even though most parrots live a long time, without feed they die, just as your online persona would without those Brits supplying your posts.

What I said and what tw posted are not the same statements.

You're the one who made the Economist/patriotic American connection. tw's post was facetiously responding to yours. TheMercenary misinterpreted it as tw actually claiming that the Economist is anti-American, which he was not.

Only a child reading with their emotions instead of reading what was written would make such an unpatriotic connection.
maybe HM is not a patriot, why else would HM make that emotional connection like an unpatriotic child instead of reading what was posted, as it was posted.

xoxoxoBruce;340620 wrote:

Only a child reading with their emotions instead of ....

xoxoxoBruce, in simple terms, called The Economist an anti-American publication. He did so in a long chain of personal insults - no useful facts or conclusions were posted by xoxoxoBruce. That reference to The Economist was to further insult tw who is an avid reader of that publication.

Again, xoxoxoBruce is posting so much profanity and so much emotional hate lately that I wonder if something within him has changed adversely.

It was xoxoxoBruce who posted accusations of The Economist in a post of emotional tirades. His accusation to only attack tw and not for logical purposes. Happy Monkey has accurately posted what those quotes really mean.

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

Another emotional post by tw, childishly accusing others of what he does constantly. Misread with emotion and cry that he is being personally attacked like a miniature Rush Limbawl.
Baby Rush adds nothing to the subject because he is a child playing his big dick slight of hand to mislead with his tantrums, blaming everyone else for his inability to grasp adult situations.
Maybe tw needs his diaper changed, his whining is disturbing the adults.

rkzenrage;340625 wrote:

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

Ask tw, he made the statement.

I did. He sidestepped.
I think it's a red herring.

rkzenrage;340625 wrote:

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

xoxoxoBruce;340628 wrote:

Ask tw, he made the statement.

rkzenrage;340629 wrote:

I did. He sidestepped.
I think it's a red herring.

tw did not claim the Economist is anti-American.

tw cited the Economist.
Bruce sarcastically referred to it as "...patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication".
tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits."

He was agreeing with you, rkzenrage, that the fact that the Economist is a British publication is not relevant.

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts.

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts. Shouldn't that facetious statement end with a question mark?

Happy Monkey;340653 wrote:

tw did not claim the Economist is anti-American.

tw cited the Economist.
Bruce sarcastically referred to it as "...patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication".
tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits."

He was agreeing with you, rkzenrage, that the fact that the Economist is a British publication is not relevant.

I was not arguing with Bruce.

xoxoxoBruce;340657 wrote:

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts. Shouldn't that facetious statement end with a question mark?

Statements don't end with question marks. He was making fun of your charactarization of the Economist. I don't have to read between the lines; I just need to read the entire line.

rkzenrage;340659 wrote:

I was not arguing with Bruce.

I didn't say you were. I just said that you and tw agree that being British doesn't make the Economist is not anti-American.

I made no characterization of the economist. I merely corrected my statement in mid-sentence. If you are reading your prejudice into the statement instead of what the statement says, I can't be responsible for that. Hasn't tw taught you that?

Happy Monkey;340664 wrote:

I didn't say you were. I just said that you and tw agree that being British doesn't make the Economist is not anti-American.

So, what does make it anti-American?
What was the point of you restating something that I stated?

rkzenrage;340670 wrote:

So, what does make it anti-American?

Nothing.

xoxoxoBruce;340666 wrote:

I made no characterization of the economist. I merely corrected my statement in mid-sentence. If you are reading your prejudice into the statement instead of what the statement says, I can't be responsible for that.

tw only says that xoxoxoBruce now looks for reasons to attack; even attack The Economist - because tw reads it and quotes from it. Lately xoxoxoBruce has become so emotional as to liberally lace posts even with profanity. So when tw says, "The Economist is an anti-American publication", then it obvious is facetious of xoxoxoBruce's new attitude.

Meanwhile, one who is more interested in learning, grasping, preparing for the future, learning from history, etc would have ignored those details - stop acting like a scumbag lawyer or politician - and deal with the issues.

Point is that xoxoxoBruce now attacks only for personal reasons rather than deal logically with the issues.

Does xoxoxoBruce even remember the post that set him off on a tirade?

Number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing. Nothing about geology, anthropology, etc was posted. Why are you jumping to such conclusions?

Darwin has nothing to do with religion. Why then do extremist religious leaders attack Darwinism when it does not affect and is irrelevant to religion? Because Darwin is not irrelevant when religion is to be imposed on all others. Islamic Fundamentalism or Christian extremists. Both share a common agenda. Impose religion on all others. That is an example of satanism. Why is that so difficult, Bruce?

Notice that xoxoxoBruce never even replies to those questions or addressed those issues. Instead xoxoxoBruce went off on a tirade that even included an attack on The Economist. tw simply posted the facetious summary of what xoxoxoBruce is posting. A more logical xoxoxoBruce would have move back to a post maybe 3 pages ago. He did not. He continues to agrue over a post that made fun of his new attitude.

xoxoxoBruce - there is the post before this all broke down into personal attacks. Can you reply to the issues and questions in that post - rather than attack the messenger? IOW can you move forward to things relevant rather than fall back into more tirades and personal attacks?

tw;340709 wrote:

tw only says that xoxoxoBruce now looks for reasons to attack; even attack The Economist - because tw reads it and quotes from it.

But tw forgets to tell you I did not attack the economist. He only thinks so because he reads with childish emotion instead of whats posted

Lately xoxoxoBruce has become so emotional as to liberally lace posts even with profanity.

A very calm and unemotional, fuck you, liar.

So when tw says, "The Economist is an anti-American publication", then it obvious is facetious of xoxoxoBruce's new attitude.

That sentence didn't even make sense but if you were being obviously facetious (by the way did you thank HM for the big word) then why didn't everyone realize that? Probably because of tw's irrational claims make him sound like such a wacko they don't know what to think anymore.

Meanwhile, one who is more interested in learning, grasping, preparing for the future, learning from history, etc would have ignored those details - stop acting like a scumbag lawyer or politician - and deal with the issues.

tw is so devoid of content he's now parroting what we've been telling him for years. At least tw has memorized what we've been telling him, if he could get a tutor to help him understand it he might start posting relevant facts.... instead of attacking me, even in response to other posters, and posts I didn't make. It must be the paranoia of not being able to understand the real world that makes tw lash out like a bad tempered child.

Point is that xoxoxoBruce now attacks only for personal reasons rather than deal logically with the issues.

Case in point.

Does xoxoxoBruce even remember the post that set him off on a tirade?

The poor baby is so confused he thinks I'm on a tirade. tw is obviously losing touch with reality, I'm sure that will lead to more wild accusations.

Notice that xoxoxoBruce never even replies to those questions or addressed those issues.

See, tw claims I never reply to questions. Now if that isn't the tallest pile of bullshit every made. From tw the champion of not answering legitimate questions. changing his position, lying about what he said, accusing everyone of being a moron because they couldn't understand his simple posts...god, what an asshat

Instead xoxoxoBruce went off on a tirade that even included an attack on The Economist. tw simply posted the facetious summary of what xoxoxoBruce is posting.

Again tw thinks I attacked the magazine because he reads with childish emotion instead of what was posted. tw is really losing it now.

A more logical xoxoxoBruce would have move back to a post maybe 3 pages ago. He did not. He continues to agrue over a post that made fun of his new attitude.

tw knows I can't go back three pages because that would just take me to waiting for tw to answer the simple questions I asked that he never answered...as usual.

xoxoxoBruce - there is the post before this all broke down into personal attacks. Can you reply to the issues and questions in that post - rather than attack the messenger? IOW can you move forward to things relevant rather than fall back into more tirades and personal attacks?

I can't move anywhere until tw answers my questions in this and others threads, but I'm afraid he's so lost he will never figure that out. Post 19 is waiting on you liar.

tw;340709 wrote:

tw only says that xoxoxoBruce now looks for reasons to attack; even attack The Economist - because tw reads it and quotes from it. Lately xoxoxoBruce has become so emotional as to liberally lace posts even with profanity. So when tw says, "The Economist is an anti-American publication", then it obvious is facetious of xoxoxoBruce's new attitude.

Meanwhile, one who is more interested in learning, grasping, preparing for the future, learning from history, etc would have ignored those details - stop acting like a scumbag lawyer or politician - and deal with the issues.

Point is that xoxoxoBruce now attacks only for personal reasons rather than deal logically with the issues.

Does xoxoxoBruce even remember the post that set him off on a tirade? Notice that xoxoxoBruce never even replies to those questions or addressed those issues. Instead xoxoxoBruce went off on a tirade that even included an attack on The Economist. tw simply posted the facetious summary of what xoxoxoBruce is posting. A more logical xoxoxoBruce would have move back to a post maybe 3 pages ago. He did not. He continues to agrue over a post that made fun of his new attitude.

xoxoxoBruce - there is the post before this all broke down into personal attacks. Can you reply to the issues and questions in that post - rather than attack the messenger? IOW can you move forward to things relevant rather than fall back into more tirades and personal attacks?

Wow... that was all over the place... still never answered the question huh?

rkzenrage;340919 wrote:

Wow... that was all over the place... still never answered the question huh?

Typical post by tw...:cool:

rkzenrage;340919 wrote:

Wow... that was all over the place... still never answered the question huh?

Of course it answers the question. The question is xoxoxoBruce as characteristized by his denigrating the Economist. It was

What question are you looking at? Only question remaining is why xoxoxoBruce has become so antisocial complete with profanity. Profanity posted only when he cannot explain why he has these fits. Why does he now post insult and accusations without facts? He did this same thing when insisting global warming did not exist; but could not explain why.

tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits." That post ignited an emotional and illogical Bruce. What is the topic? The new xoxoxoBruce - who today is back to posting more like the old Bruce - no profanity; just the facts.

No, tw. The question was;

How do you make the leap from not believing Darwin to endorsing Satanism? Just because these people don't understand the sciences of geology, anthropology, ad infinitum doesn't make them Satanists, just wrong.

That's when you (post #20) started* with the condescending, hey look a birdy, changing what you actually posted, bullshit.


* in this thread

tw;340984 wrote:

Of course it answers the question. The question is xoxoxoBruce as characteristized by his denigrating the Economist. It was

What question are you looking at? Only question remaining is why xoxoxoBruce has become so antisocial complete with profanity. Profanity posted only when he cannot explain why he has these fits. Why does he now post insult and accusations without facts? He did this same thing when insisting global warming did not exist; but could not explain why.

tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits." That post ignited an emotional and illogical Bruce. What is the topic? The new xoxoxoBruce - who today is back to posting more like the old Bruce - no profanity; just the facts.

So its not anti-American? :whofart:
What is your issue with a straight answer?

rkzenrage;340993 wrote:

So its not anti-American?

You have the right answer. I repeatedly confirmed that I posted facetiously. You even quoted Happy Monkey who summarized what was obvious:

tw cited the Economist.
Bruce sarcastically referred to it as "...patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication".
tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits."

Where is the problem? Or did you only read the intentional distortion by TheMercenary who coat tailed a joke on a facetious reply. Happy Monkey so easily summarized reality, you would even quote it, Happy Monkey’s summary would be confirmed by the author, and still you want it explained?

Bruce was disparaging The Economist because tw reads it and sometimes quotes from it. Bruce’s post was a backhanded slap that was followed with an obviously facetious reply. How many times must it be explained by multiple people?

Kudos to TheMercenary for playing a joke so effectively.

That is your idea of a straight answer huh? Sad.
I'll leave you alone now.

What wasn't straight about that answer? I won't deny that tw often writes confusingly, but pretty much every sentence in that post was direct and to the point.