Dude, I couldn't agree with your cartoon more :) We dont have much in the way of "lobby" groups in New Zealand (being that there isn't much point in bribing (oops, funding the capaingns of) our politicians here.... but we do have the Society for the Protection of Community Standards. http://www.spcs.org.nz

They say that noone can go and see certain movies (Irreversible, Visitor Q, and Baise-Moi come to mind), even tho they are rated R-18 (18+ only, no exceptions), and only shown about 3 times at an international film fest. These films are somewhat "extreme", but the rating reflects that, and the fest. promoters state clearly whats going on.

However, "Passion of the Christ", with its "disturbing" amount of violence (I've not seen it yet, but by all accounts for people I trust who have, its _messy_), should be "reclassified" (currently R-16) so that kids can see it. Seriously. I plan to see this, but I think I might take a barf bag with me, and by all accounts, it MAY be the first film I walk out of. Time will tell.

But, its about God (well, Jesus) - and well, violence and religion are ok. mmmmkay!.

Speaking of "things in the media", do people in the US realise how much everyone else in the world was laughing (at you) over the whole Janet Jackson breast thing? I know a lot of american's thought the reaction was crazy, but still.....

:)

Cheers for the super-duper-interesting blog, BTW :) Always interesting to read your stuff.

"I'm all for standing up for what you believe in, but there's a point at which you should just accept that other people might not think the way you do and let it go"

Pedophiles dont think like I do.

It's all about where people draw their moral lines. Some of us draw ours a little higher.

Amen, Rory.

Jeremy, I don't think Pedophiles apply to Rory's argument. Pedophilia is not a victimless crime.

I'm completely on board with Rory regarding free speech. If you don't like what you hear on the radio or see on TV, shut it off. Or speak with your consumer dollars. No need to take people off the air, or throw hissy, whiny fits. ("Oh no, my eyes! My eyes! I've gone blind by seeing Janet's breast!")

However, I'll point out that it isn't only right-wing wackos who are trying to stop free speech. There are plenty of left-wing wackos who are also anti free speech. For example, at a number of colleges and universities, students and professors are punished for expressing conservative points of view. (Hmmm - maybe that's what they mean by "liberal arts"?)

Not that your cartoon isn't funny. But I came away thinking that (perhaps) you think all the folks trying to thwart free speech are those crazy conservatives.

Also, it seems to me that the issues surrounding the current need in our society to blame others for our own problems seems to be different from the free speech issue. That drives me nuts, too! If I do something stupid, then it is my fault. I shouldn't be able to sue everyone around me because they let me do something stupid (or encouraged me to do something stupid, like marketed to me or something.) My stupidity should be my own, stupid fault!

Jeremy,

Let me echo NJ John's sentiments regarding your pedophile non-argument. When has Howard Stern ever talked about having sex with anyone other than a twenty-something with large breasts? And as for your other comment, I think you proved Rory's point. You can set your moral line wherever you please, just keep your extraordinarily self-righteous hands off mine. Thanks.

Rory,

"I can use the word 'dickhead' in upwards of five times in less than a minute without having to worry about the repercussions"

Oh, there will be repercussions my friend...you just wait ;)

It's put up or shut up time: Lawmakers and officials need to quite playing coy and just do what they really want to do.

Repeal the first amendment.

Freedom of religion? Not if your religion allows gays to marry.

Freedom of speech? The press? Rory says it all in this article.

Right of the public peacably to assemble? Only if that's in a free speech zone.

Petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Not very likely.

Why can't politicians admit where their feelings lie and work repealing that pesky first amendment? At least that would lessen the cognitive dissonance rampant in Washington and get everything out in the open.

I agree with all the freedom of speech comments, etc. The real issue here is that it is all about the money! Clear channel cannot have these kinds of fines ($750,000 just recently). The Business needs to show the conservatives that they will not tolerate this "trash", so the advertisers will keep spending.
It is time for Stern to pass the torch anyway. He was at his best back in the 80's when he was in NY.

Rory, welcome to the bitchin' session. You should have been out East when Opie and Anthony were ruling the evening drive time out here. The were throw their 3rd annual Sex for Sam contest (where people get to run around NYC have sex in public places for points) when one of the couples get busted doing it in St.Pats. They get tossed off there air, and the GM and program manager get fired because of the FCC. But the kicker was that the FCC couldn't find anything that breaks any of their rules, but still caused a stink, and gave the radio station a fine. THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG ON THE TAPE, and they still got a fine. The station refuses to pay the fine, but did not rehire the people they fired. And this was over 18 months ago.

Don

Your comic should have the stick figure say "I'm gonna *spike* your ass to the wall" instead of "nail".

Hehe... good rant. I'm a staunch, Bible-thumping Christian who used to work for a TBN affiliate network (and whose dad managed one when I was a kid), but I still agree. As a former master control operator, I've watched more TBN than any person should be allowed to in a lifetime. Maybe 1/5 of the shows on there are worthy of airtime IMHO, the remainder are empire-building Jim Baker-types hawking "teaching series" and conferences that are one part pop psychology, two parts tortured hermeneutics, and three parts ego.

My first thought was 'Boycott Clearchannel'

My second thought was 'How?'

My next thought was 'I don't listen to the radio anyway.'

And my final thought was 'would they even notice a boycott?'

God I love this country.

I was offended that there was no warning that there would be red coloured blood on this post. I'm reporting it to the FCC for vulgarity and for crimes again humanity or something...

A few thoughts...

http://www.lparky.com/blog/CommentView,guid,d15a13f7-1436-4346-84a5-12e7b1cd43d7.aspx

The funny thing is that Stern has been doing the same kind of stuff for the past X years. And now the FCC is claming down. It all started with the stupid janet jackson boob excapade. And all the trouble the politicians were making about the FCC, now that the FCC is being pushed by the politicians they have to do something.

Stern thinks bush is behind it because he hasnt said nice thing about him lately. Im not even going to comments on that.

Its funny thtough what politicians think is important. One day its the FCC the next its gay marriage. Tomorrow it will be something else, but it wont be a real issue like our dependency on oil or solving the homeless problem or(pick a problem in the USA).

I agree with Rory, If you dont like it turn it off. If I were the FCC Id be more concerned about whats on the 6 o'clock news every day.

From Cnn:
"Clear Channel has now said they'll offer DJ's training classes on indecent material."

+ + + +

I can imagine the situation... WWII Sarge teaching all those Djs about sexual diseases and the like...

"Your Penis is a Weapon!"

Rory: Amen. AMEN.

You might have seen my rants about censorship in the past, so you know my feelings in the matter. I'm in the UK this week, and hadn't heard Howard had been cancelled.
I'm not a fan, but even the the fact they would blur boobs out when the show was on tv used to tick me off. If you're going to tune in to listen to a guy describe how good someones breasts are, you should at least be able to make a judgement call yourself..

Stupid people watch TV, read news papers and listen to the radio.

That is all.

Howard Stern has lost his masters their big slice of the pie, no one care to listen to his endless diatribes about women, drunken dwarves and sex-crazed retards. No money = No support. Clear channel seems to be dumping him for economic reasons and are hoping the FCC will do their dirty work for them. Good bye Howard, you are a washed up old letch!

Los

John -

"Stupid people watch TV, read news papers and listen to the radio."

So do smart people, though :)

Howard Stern is crap, but he should be able to spew his filth just as anyone should be able to. Does anyone else find it strange that in America Janet Jackson's breast was a big deal, but several times now I have witnessed clips from the Jeebus movie depicting him covered in blood and beaten.

Why are out opinions of what's okay to let everyone see and hear so backwards in the US. If you are going to censor then censor violence.

But you know what, people are ignoring the horrible situation that Iraq has become.. and the crappy economy, and the other real problems that are being hidden by this and the gay marriage stuff.

Indecency and gay marriage are just diversions that Bush is using to obscure the real issues.
They are issues that the republicans are already behind, so he can rally his troops while getting them to forget all the other crap.

For this sinner hunters there need to be people like Howard to keep them busy. They are not clever enough to enjoy their own company ( and I am not talking about masturbation) or grow intelectually they do not even try to work hard to go to Heaven, but instead try to punish people who goes beyond their understanding.
I think they should be burn like they did in the past in the name of god to those who desagree with them.
Let's burn them in the name of Howard Stern!!!

I understand your comments and I would have agreed to them a few years ago.

But trust me, it all changes when you have kids.

Just out of curiosity, Marc, how old do your kids have to be before "it all changes"?

NJ John:

You say Pedophelia is not a victomless crime? I guess you mean you are only a pedophile if you particapate in the act, not if you think it or preach it. Webster would disagree with you. Hypothetically, if Howard Stern was to TALK about sex with minors, would you THEN think he has crossed the line?

Rory,
You are a dickhead, would you like to be an intern on my show?

If you are a big enough dickhead, they may give you your own show!

Big deal, Howard Stern goes off the air. What a big loss to society...

Let's rant about more exciting issues such as deciding whether or not gays should get their own public bathrooms and shower rooms...

Fuck decency!

I should be able to have sex with my wife on our front lawn and masturbate on the porch. If you don't like what you're seeing just turn away...

Um, maybe when you have kids you begin to realize the effort your parents took to raise you with a basic set of values and morals.

It IS where you draw the morality line, and (contrary to Joe's comment) you can leave your hands off me while still affecting my children or someone else's.

Consider the following. Someone lives next to you and constructs a large billboard in their yard with violently-sexually material such as beastiality or incest. Now this person has never asked you to comment on this billboard or even look at it. This person fully owns the sign and it is well within the property they also own. Should this be allowed? What about children that are walking home from school and have to pass by? Should they have to go another way? Should neighbors move if they don't want to see the sign?

Although this hypothetical is extreme and not the same as the Stern situation, there are similarities. Broadcast radio is free and published across thousands of miles of airways. There has to be moral guidelines.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that pulling Stern was the wrong decision as well, but there DOES have to a morality line somewhere. The human mind is naturally prone to chaos and anarchy. Think of the French Revolutions. Think of the Russion uprisings in the 30s. Think of Tiananmen Square.

And I don't quite understand the quip in the cartoon about "don't start with your leftist crap..." Clearly it is (and has always been) conservatives who are more about personal freedom and less government intervention. Frivilous lawsuits against gun-makers/tobacco companies come to mind? These all surround left wing lobby groups. "No personal responsiblity, only lawsuits and bitching"? Lead the way, oh ACLU!

Paul -

"Consider the following. Someone lives next to you and constructs a large billboard in their yard with violently-sexually material such as beastiality or incest."

Consider the following. Someone leaves a bible out, and your children read a story about Cain and Abel somehow fathering children. Cain and Abel needed wives, and their wives were...

Well, let's just say we don't need incest on billboards to get it in front of children.

"This person fully owns the sign and it is well within the property they also own. Should this be allowed?"

That's a tough question, but you can't turn off a billboard - you *can* turn off (or never turn on) a radio.

"And I don't quite understand the quip in the cartoon about 'don't start with your leftist crap...'"

When I talk about gay marriage, or freedom to be vulgar on the radio, someone almost always talks about how I'm a "lefty liberal pinko commie fag." That's the source of the quip.

"Frivilous lawsuits against gun-makers/tobacco companies come to mind"

It's tough to kill somebody with a radio program.

Just for clarification. It is usually the right wing people that says you are responsible for your own action, and the left wingers say that too much freedom is bad and you should be shielded from your own actions.

Hjörtur, that's just prejudice. Read up on the topic of syndicalism (or anarchosyndicalism.)

In the US right now, consider gay marriage. Consider using christian morals to define what should be allowed in a society or not. Gun makers and tobacco companies have lobbies that reek with money - ofcourse the right-wing people will support it.

The gay marriage movement is alot more grassroots. It certainly lacks that huge pile of rich companies the tobacco lobby has as sponsors.

And revolution, is this a bad thing? I'm pretty certain the french revolution was a good thing. Starting to talk about where to draw the line, start using christian ethics where they don't apply - then you will have your revolution.

Man isn't prone to chaos and disorder, the urbanized man is. We're confined in a constantly shrinking cage of morale and ethics.

Bleh... I really shouldn't go on a rant, but, well I did.

Of course a radio program does not kill anyone. The point is that will affect an immature psyche, which is why it is important for it's content to be examined. Cutting someone's head off is not the only way you can infringe on their liberty.

The Columbine sherrif's department has just released information concerning Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine killers. Supposively they loved listening to shock jock radio, heavy metal, and watching violent movies. Does this mean that those three items produce the formula for mentally-unstable, mass-murdering adolescents? Of course not. Nor is it uncommon for children/teenagers to desire the cutting edge extreme.

It is extremely naive to think that you can ALWAYS watch your children a hundred hours a day and monitor what they hear and see where they go. This doesn't mean the goverment or someone else should have to do it for you. And it isn't good to keep children that sheltered anyway.

The biggest issue, why is this being discussed as a US vs. Stern court case? A private corporation did what they thought was in their best interest. Financial best interest at that. Sure, the government levied fines and threatened censorship, but if ClearChannel was revenuing more profit than cost (after fines and such) they would have kept him on the air.

Again, I generally agree with the theme of this article. Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither. (T.Jefferson)

Gay marriage isn't an issue of right versus left. It's an issue of certain groups wanting to redefine the definition of marriage.

The obvious problem with gay marriage is not gay marriage itself. It's where it will lead. If two consenting men want to marry, then why not one man and three women who all consent (such as the poligamy cases in Utah).

Btw, read the stats, Bob. Many liberals are against gay marriage just as many conservatives are for it. Upwards of 70% of America agree that the marriage should be left as it is and some other civil union or partnership should be commenced.

Paul -

"The obvious problem with gay marriage is not gay marriage itself. It's where it will lead. If two consenting men want to marry, then why not one man and three women who all consent..."

And what if that *did* happen? How does it hurt anybody else?

Take a look at Denmark where gay marriage is legal or Scandinavia where civil unions have erroded the family structure. All of these countries have asked the same question "How does it hurt anybody else?" and all have found out. These countries have more single-parent familes than conventional, producing less well-rounded children. As well, they have seen the affects of that. In particular, Sweden and Denmark have extremely high suicide rates, teen pregnancies, and drug-related violence. (Of course, some of that can be credited to a heavily socialist state)

Marriage is currently defined as one man and one non-related woman bonded in a sexual (or consumated) agreement to remain as parterns for life. Thus far, religious groups have taken that definition and wrapped sacred attributes around it.

The problem with the modern securalist view, which is to trivialize this union or re-write it's definition, is that there is an assumption made that is incorrect. That assumption is that this partnership (marriage) has no responsibilities and is all about privilege.

Marriage DOES have responsiblities. It is not just a union which yields tax incentives and class status. Rather, it civilizes men, protects woman, and furthers social procreation. These points may sound traditionally old-fashioned, but they are accurate as you observe history.

Rory -

Perhaps you should write an article about this.

Paul -

"These countries have more single-parent familes than conventional, producing less well-rounded children. As well, they have seen the affects of that. In particular, Sweden and Denmark have extremely high suicide rates, teen pregnancies, and drug-related violence."

I'd like to see the data that shows high suicide rates, teen pregnancies, and drug-related violence as being *caused* by having a single parent.

I don't doubt that there are studies which show that there might be a higher instance of [insert problem here] for children who grew up in single-parent scenarios, but that wouldn't establish a causitive relationship between the two, which is what I want to see.

Hey, Paul. A comment from an adolescent in Sweden here, growing up with one parent (the other one being an alcoholic.) Single parents are pretty common in Sweden, yes. Thought I'm not quite sure if this is harmful. You will probably debate that boys need a male rolemodel etc., well guess what - most of these single parents don't stay single for life. I've had a great youth - being that I still keep in touch with dad, I get two very different views of society.

Furthermore, heavy socialist state? don't go throw "accusations" around without proof. Sweden is at best a heavily eroded socialist state. The governing party, "Socialdemokraterna" - I guess comparable to the democrat party in USA - is as liberal as anything. We do have decent state-sanctioned medicare and pretty high taxes though, if that's what you mean by a socialist state.

As for Denmark, the governing party is right now liberal, with a growing neonazi party as one of the largest political forces (Dansk Folkeparti, the Danish Peoples Party.)

As for gay rights - I'm pretty damn happy we allow some rights for people who love someone of the same gender here in Sweden. Not enough, though. Show me one relatively objective source which shows a connection between gay marriage, single parents and drug-related violence in Scandinavia, would you?

Furthermore, I can't see the connection between marriage and procreation. Who is to say that a homosexual couple couldn't raise an adopted kid equally good as any heterosexual couple? Ofcourse the narrow-minded loudmouthed part of society would bitch about it - they always do - but society would have to yield. Oh I know why I can't see the connection, probably because I'm from a morally deprived marxist state where everyone over the age of 14 is either pregnant or spun, aye?

Ok, I wandered of there.

Sweden is very liberal and open when it comes to sex, drugs and violence compared to a few other 'liberal' states in the world. We discuss and debate the issues instead of hiding them away - therefor we get more accurate statistics. If the statistics are extrordinarily high - that's one source for error. It's not the whole truth but a part of it.

Do respond Paul, I'm very anxious to hear what you have to say (and that wasn't even sarcastic.)

No one is suggesting that a single-parent family will CAUSE extreme behaviour but certainly it doesn't help.

"...I don't doubt that there are studies which show that there might be a higher instance of [insert problem here] for children who grew up in single-parent scenarios, but that wouldn't establish a causitive relationship...."

Of course it would. How else do you gauge causation if not by affect? Let me get this straight. There are studies that consistently show higher problems for single-parent children than those with two parents, and that does not supply ample causation? What then WOULD it establish? There are no other conflicting results in these studies, at least not within the parameters of the underlying research.

If you want to see actual data, Google the topic. There are hundreds if not thousands of sites devoted to single-parent familes and the trouble that can ensue. I challenge you to find one (1) site that helps conventional two-parent families with trouble that can arise from having both parents.

Marcus -

"Furthermore, I can't see the connection between marriage and procreation. Who is to say that a homosexual couple couldn't raise an adopted kid equally good as any heterosexual couple?"

Let's pretend for a moment that a child could achieve well-rounded growth from two fathers or two mothers, that isn't even the point. How exactly will two homosexual parents conceive a child? Certainly, with artificial insemination babies could be conceived in labs or even be carried by surrogate mothers, but the fact of the matter remains. One of the largest reasons men and women join in marriage is because their plumbing is conducive for procreation. I can't believe this was an area you chose to disagree with.

Comparable to the democrat party in the US? Nah, sorry. Although we certainly have our Kucinich's who want to drag the party in that direction, I don't think so. Most of Sweden pays upwards of 75% in income tax and, as you mentioned, provides state-funded medicare and college education freely. As the world turns, you guys certainly take the socalist metal. Perhaps you don't know how bad it is because you've never had the freedom to choose how the majority of your money should be spent.

Paul -

"Of course it would. How else do you gauge causation if not by affect?"

I could probably assemble a study showing a *correlation* between swallow migration patterns and NASDAQ performance. However, that doesn't establish a *causative* relationship.

The two are entirely different.

A correlation is very easy to come by. People are duped all the time by correlations. Ever met somebody who believes that (s)he has ESP?

A causative relationship, on the other hand, is much more difficult to prove.

Scott Hanselman just wrote a post in which he discussed cargo cults: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=315b5639-7926-4c26-aa8e-72c6e9c7c546.

Check it out for a good example of people seeing a correlation between two events without understand the causative agent.

This is what you're (possibly (likely)) doing by associating single parent situations with the downfall of society.

Paul -

"Let's pretend for a moment that a child could achieve well-rounded growth from two fathers or two mothers, that isn't even the point."

Actually, Paul, that pretty much *is* the point.

You were arguing against it. Feel free to jump ship if you don't want to argue the point, but at least have the decency to admit that you're doing it.

Paul -

"Perhaps you don't know how bad it is because you've never had the freedom to choose how the majority of your money should be spent."

The *majority* of their money?

You must know something I don't.

I couldn't even get a good college education in this country because of the cost. At $35,000 a year, a good college is out of reach for most people, even with so-called "financial-aid" (here, sonny - we'll buy your pencils for you as long as you write a 40 page essay on why our company is the greatest).

That, and I've been losing *over* 50% of my income to taxes each year.

Really, I'd love to know how to spend the majority of my money, but the government takes that majority, spends it on a bullshit war, and tells me to fend for myself in terms of medicine and education while it lets jobs like mine slip abroad.

I wonder how hard it would be to learn Swedish...

Rory -

LOL. You're hopeless. I don't know where to go from here. But alas, I shall try to break this down easily and completely.

First you talk about my not understanding that two similar results won't provide a causative relationship for two separate studies because the meat of their research is entirely different. Thank you for clearing that up. What would I ever do with another lesson in differential analysis. Um...the problem here? All studies have a certain hypothesis at their core, an hypothesis which drive the purpose of their research. Unfortunately, you are expressing the same deductive mistakes you are chastising me about. You have drawn a corelation between my mentioning that single-parent children fall to worse behaviour and those children, in turn, becoming the demise of society.

Listen carefuly. I am not relating the two. I am not saying (nor thinking, nor meaning) that single-parent children directly contribute to the demise of society. I am saying that study after study has proven that single-parent children are more prone to drugs, teenage pregnancy, and violence than those with conventional two-parent families. Period.

I also have mentioned (in close proximity perhaps) that certain countries have seen the affects of those single-parent children. I never said that those affects erroded their society. You must have jumped to that conclusion by subconciously assuming that things like teenage-pregancy, drugs, and violence decay society at large. Huh, go figure.


I have to tell you. Your finishing comments are most satisfying to what I already assumed. "That, and I've been losing *over* 50% of my income to taxes each year."

Thank you for backing up my point. Those in the highest tax bracket are paying nearly half of their income now due to state tax, federal tax, social security, and medicare. Why on earth would you want to pay more? You express anger at paying that much to the goverment who, as you say, largely wastes it. So the answer is to give MORE to the goverment? The answer is being upset at conservatice politicians who want to give your taxes back?

When did college education and health care become entitlements? And what about a house or car? What about food? Why not just give all your money to the goverment and let them supply you with everything you ever need in your life?


"Actually, Paul, that pretty much *is* the point."

Sorry, Rory, you stepped into the corelation pit again. When I responded to Marcus, I was trying to understand his ignorance on procreation. Yes I had made previous arguments on single-parenting children not turning out right, but I had let that go for a moment to explain what I meant (and what is commonly meant) by procreation. Not adoption. P-r-o-c-r-e-at-i-o-n.


"Lettings jobs like yours slip abroad...."?

Right, because the goverment can (or even should if it could) step in and control what jobs come in and go from America in the global market of today.


"Spends it on a bullshit war...."?

Yesterday, Iraq signed its first full Constitution along with a Bill Of Rights naming countless freedoms for women and those of different religions. But you're right. The country is not better off, and it was all just bullshit. We should definitely never have stepped in there and removed Saddam Hussein who butchered hundreds of thousands of innocent people including several Americans. Wise up.


"At $35,000 a year, a good college is out of reach for most people, even with so-called "financial-aid""

If you go to private school it may be that much. As to a normal in-state college, the costs are more around $10,000 a year. (http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/thinkcollege/early/students/edlite-college-costs.html) Believe it or not, you don't have to go to Harvard to become successful. Check out Forbes 100 sometime. You might be surprised.


"Feel free to jump ship if you don't want to argue the point, but at least have the decency to admit that you're doing it."

Stick to humorous blogs, Rory. You are getting a little unstable.

Study Swedish hard, you'll be right at home. Europe could not doubt use another person who does not understand moral values, economics, or how either relate to solid societal growth.

:)

Paul -

"First you talk about my not understanding that two similar results won't provide a causative relationship for two separate studies because the meat of their research is entirely different. Thank you for clearing that up."

Well, if you hadn't said this:

"Of course it would. How else do you gauge causation if not by affect?"

Then I wouldn't have argued the point. By the way: The word you're looking for is "effect."

"You have drawn a corelation between my mentioning that single-parent children fall to worse behaviour and those children, in turn, becoming the demise of society."

I used the term "demise of society" to loosely sum up a bit of what you said. If it misrepresents your intentions, then fine: I was wrong. I don't have a problem admitting that.

However, if "high suicide rates, teen pregnancies, and drug-related violence" *aren't* indicative of demise, then I don't know what is.

"I am saying that study after study has proven that single-parent children are more prone to drugs, teenage pregnancy, and violence than those with conventional two-parent families. Period."

Point me to the *best* study on the subject that you know of on the internet. I'd love to read it.

At any rate, it's entirely possible that the reasons behind the drugs, pregnancy, and violence have nothing to do with the fact that there's only one parent. Has it ever occurred to you that the same circumstances which cause the drugs, pregnancy (whatever's wrong with that), and violence might be the *same* circumstances that cause a couple to break up? In other words, that the single parentage *and* the drugs, etc., are caused by the same circumstances?

Seems possible (note: doesn't seem possible that *you* thought of it, but rather that it seems possible in general).

But, I suppose it won't look that way if your study sets out to prove that there's a causative link between single parents and drugs/crime/whatever.

"I also have mentioned (in close proximity perhaps) that certain countries have seen the affects of those single-parent children."

*E*ffects. It's the word that starts with an "e." It's very different from the "-ffects" word that starts with an "a."

"Those in the highest tax bracket are paying nearly half of their income now due to state tax, federal tax, social security, and medicare. Why on earth would you want to pay more?"

You don't get it: I wouldn't mind paying such high taxes if I were provided with worthwhile civil services such as those relating to healthcare and education. While I don't pay as much as our Swedish friend, I pay damn near it, and my government doesn't care at all about me or my needs. It isn't the amount - it's where it goes that bothers me.

"When did college education and health care become entitlements?"

Never, and that's the problem.

Consider the infant mortality rates between the Great, Grand and Wonderful United States of America, and of Sweden, where the people are bled for their hard earned cash:

USA - total: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Sweden - total: 3.42 deaths/1,000 live births
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

Interesting numbers. They don't prove anything, but they provide a good starting point. I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if those damned high taxes in Sweden are responsible for the three less infant deaths per thousand.

I mean, don't those stupid Swedes realize that they could have big screen TVs if they just let three more babies per thousand die?

Fools. Where are their priorities?

"When I responded to Marcus, I was trying to understand his ignorance on procreation. Yes I had made previous arguments on single-parenting children not turning out right, but I had let that go for a moment to explain what I meant (and what is commonly meant) by procreation. Not adoption. P-r-o-c-r-e-at-i-o-n."

What do you mean by "ignorance on procreation?"

It's *perfectly* reasonable for a gay man and a straight woman to have sex for the purpose of having children.

"If you go to private school it may be that much. As to a normal in-state college, the costs are more around $10,000 a year."

Except that I wanted a good education. The "normal in-state" schools in Oregon are crap. They're designed to churn out business majors.

"Believe it or not, you don't have to go to Harvard to become successful. Check out Forbes 100 sometime. You might be surprised."

It has nothing to do with Harvard, which isn't even a particularly good school (you're guaranteed connections, but not a solid education).

If I'm going to spend four years of my life doing something, then I want it to be for a good reason. Attending some state-run degree mill wasn't my idea of time and money well spent.

"Study Swedish hard, you'll be right at home. Europe could not doubt use another person who does not understand moral values, economics, or how either relate to solid societal growth."

Oh, Jeesus. Study English hard - you might stop saying things like "Europe could not doubt use..."

A Longitudinal Analysis of Family Relationships and Children's School Achievement in One- and Two-Parent Families

http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/sp-ps/arb-dgra/publications/research/2000docs/W-01-1-8/W-01-1-8_E_abs.shtml

Oh, just a quick fact-correction for Paul - the normal income tax in Sweden is 33%, if you make more than 20 000kr (around $2900) a month you get to pay taxes to the state which in extreme cases can go upwards 50%.

Having somewhat prepaid college-studies isn't all that bad. Or is it? I, like most students, borrow about $1000 a month to afford my studies.

And how, how I ask you, can free medicare be bad? We still have private clinics for people who want to pay the extra dollars. We just believe in equal rights no matter the income when it comes to things essential to life.

But this is way off-topic :)

Ok, I'll keep going here anyway.

First of all, I'm sorry I posted otherwise because I'm well aware of the connection between marriage and procreation, I just don't believe they are essential to eachother. Many people in Sweden never get married due to the fact that marriage still is a very religious thing, and we're a very secularized country. Furthemore, marriage mostly gives you obligations, and hardly any extra rights. We're not that big on suing in Sweden (you should try not having a defunct judiciary system some time, it's pretty funny), actually we're not that big on courts involving at all. We like to believe in the intelligence of people to sort things out w/o having to use the courtroom. I guess we're old fashioned that way, not like in El Grande America de Liberal where suing seems customary if you get scolded by hot coffee. This might ofcourse be prejudice - do enlighten me.

Whilst on the topic of education - when it comes to any level of education, it's all government funded to some level. For some reason, our silly leaders believe that how solid an education you get shouldn't depend on the size of daddys wallet.

Oh - and on the topic of Iraq. Yeah nice going there! Running over the UN and forcing a system down the iraqi peoples throats. That's great. Ok, it was nice you took down Saddam, I can't argue that. But you lied to the entire world about your intentions. And if you just shove democracy down the throats of the iraqi people, it's lost on them. How could they appreciate it, after so many years of state sanctioned terror, without governing it with state sanctioned terror? Look at russia, it has taken years for it to establish some sort of totalitarian democracy after the demise of Soviet. Democracy has to come from the people, or else it's just another system.

But what the hell, if we don't like it, we could just throw another war, now couldn't we? It's amusing to see that you created the whole middle-east situation and when you try to resolve it, usually by force or by supporting occupational forces who regularly executes mass-killings (*cough*Israel*cough*) you want praise. Gee.

Gosh golly, I'm starting to sound as a leftist commie-fruit. I do apologize, I sometimes sound like a rabid psychotic mongoose on crack when I argue.

Paul -
"When did college education and health care become entitlements"

When I lived in England.

"Yes I had made previous arguments on single-parenting children not turning out right, but I had let that go for a moment "

Erm, let it go entirely. I'm from a single parent family and deeply resent you assuming I might not 'turn out right' Thanks largely to my mum working her arse off for me and my sister we both turned out quite alright thanks.
And no teanage pregnancies - amazing huh?

Seriously Ian? Cause I've been pregnant like twelve times. Today. That's thug-life, growing up with a single mother in the Swedish countryside.

Seriously I'm hi 24/7. It's a veritable needlefeast, when I'm not trying to get pregnant ofcourse.

No one is saying that ever kid with one parent turns out bad. I think there are a lot of people responding to this blog out of personal sentiment instead of discussing this logically.

Paul is just pointing out studies which are seen and talked about everywhere.

How did the Howard Stern thing wind up turning into this anyway?

Matthew: I know, I'm not taking it personally. I guess I just like... being childish sometimes :)

Matthew -

"I think there are a lot of people responding to this blog out of personal sentiment instead of discussing this logically.

Paul is just pointing out studies which are seen and talked about everywhere."

I've asked Paul to point out studies, and he hasn't done it. What he's *actually* doing is mentioning that such studies exist, which isn't quite the same thing.

That, and while doing it, he's getting a bit rude. With comments like "Rory is upset (and a little confused)" and "LOL. You're hopeless," I think it's safe to say that he's not looking for a "logical" argument.

Check out http://www.stopfcc.com/

Paul, you cannot reason with unreasonable people.

Rory-

You want studies? Here are some statistics on children of divorce/single parents. Ready?

1.“Children who grow up in single-parent homes are less likely to marry, more likely to divorce, and more likely to have children outside of wedlock” - Daniel T. Lichter et al., "Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?" American Sociological Review 57 (December 1992): 781-799. Cited on page 27 of The Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher

2.“Children reared in fatherless homes are more than twice as likely to become male adolescent delinquents or teen mothers, according to a significant new study by two economists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Llad Phillips and William S. Comanor based their research on data from
random surveys of 15,000 youths conducted annually by the Center for Human Resources at Ohio State University.” -Press Release October 11, 1996
University of California, Santa Barbara

3.“The rate of violent crime and burglary is related to the number of single parent households with children aged twelve to twenty.”-"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 19, citing Douglas A. Smith, G. and Roger Jarjoura, Social Structure and Criminal Victimiazation, 25 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 27-52 (1988).

4.Among all possible contributing factors, "only divorce rates were consistently associated with suicide and with homicide rates." David Lester, "Time-Series Versus Regional Correlates of Rates of Personal Violence," Death Studies (1993): 529-534.

5.“Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families,according to a new study released Thursday. Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton
University tracked a sample of 6,000 males aged 14-22 from 1979-93.They found that those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated - even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant.” See http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2555648262-e68

I know, I know, there are exceptions. However, you said you wanted studies, so here they are, for what they are worth. There are plenty more where these came from. If you need more, please let me know. I will be happy to provide many more examples.

"then don't turn the f****** radio on", that's the oldest apology that evil men use as an excuse to pollute public discourse. Now days
it's used mostly by cowards who are attempting to avoid confrontations. So sorry about your not being able to handle this and that and so forth, why don't you just "turn your own F****
self off? Then everything will be nice and quiet for you.

And The Bloggie Goes To....

And The Bloggie Goes To....

The FCC 0wns me