by Jack
The following should be a statistical improbability, but it is a statistic that is often repeated in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Flint, Baltimore, Oakland, Compton-Watts, New York, etc. Of the 77 people shot over the weekend in Chicago, all were black or African-American, none of the known shooters were white and none were shot by police.
What can we deduce from this relatively common occurrence? (a) There is systemic racism among police. (b) Black lives don’t matter. (c) It’s time to defund the police. (d) More social service workers are needed. (e) Cities run by democrats are the worst for violence and corruption.
If you answered anything but b and e, you would be wrong.
Meanwhile in New York, the black on black homicide rate for June is up 200%, that would be a 3 fold increase. Overall, the city’s homicide rate has reached a five-year high with the number of shootings increasing 42 percent from a year ago, city police Commissioner Dermot Shea said Thursday.
Shea blamed a combination of a justice system which has been suppressed in producing criminal indictments; a deteriorated social safety net, which he claims is sending released prisoners into homelessness; bail reform laws that eliminate bail for most misdemeanor and “nonviolent” felonies; and case deferments, WNBC in New York reported.
“We cannot keep people safe without keeping bad, dangerous, people off the streets,” he said. “You have a criminal justice system that’s imploding. That’s the kindest way to put it.” California voters were duped into similar so-call criminal justice reforms that released many habitual offenders back into society and this has had similar results.
Now, lets take a quick look at how democrat control has worked for San Francisco: S. F. crime statistics report an overall upward trend in crime based on data from 17 years with violent crime increasing and property crime increasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in San Francisco for 2020 is expected to be higher than in 2016.
The city violent crime rate for San Francisco in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 78.95% and the city property crime rate in San Francisco was higher than the national property crime rate average by 122.03%.
In 2016 the city violent crime rate in San Francisco was higher than the violent crime rate in California by 59.55% and the city property crime rate in San Francisco was higher than the property crime rate in California by 113.13%.
The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in Compton is 1 in 26. Based on FBI crime data. Relative to California, Compton has a crime rate that is higher than 89% of the state’s cities and towns of all sizes. Yes, of course Compton, like Chicago, is run by democrats, haven’t you been paying attention?
Aren’t most major cities run by Democrats, though? Rural areas tend to vote Republican and urban areas tend to vote Democrat…urban areas also tend to have more violent crime for a variety of reasons. It seems to me that suggesting major cities are violent because they are run by Democrats is thus mistaking correlation with causation. But perhaps there is data showing that major cities have less violent crime when they are run by Republicans; if so I’d be interested to see it.
Chris, “But perhaps there is data showing that major cities have less violent crime when they are run by Republicans; if so I’d be interested to see it.”
Ask and you shall receive.
In November 2012, Mike Bloomberg, who was registered as a republican then, was mayor of NY city. Here is the news from that time.
New York City celebrates day without violent crime:
29 November 2012
“For the first time in living memory, New York has spent a day entirely without violent crime.
The city police department’s chief spokesman said that Monday was the most bloodshed-free 24-hour period in recent history.
Not a single murder, shooting, stabbing or other incident of violent crime was reported for a whole day.
Despite a July spike in homicides, the city’s murder rate is on target to hit its lowest point since 1960.
Just a few months ago, residents were living through what one tabloid newspaper called the “summer of blood”.
But killings are now down 23% compared with last year, which represents a 50-year low.
There have been 366 murders so far this year in New York City, compared with 472 at this time last year.
Experts say such a low number of homicides is highly unusual for a US city of eight million people.
Gang-plagued Chicago, Illinois, has chalked up 462 murders this year, despite having a population of about 2.7 million people.
There have been 301 murders in 2012 in the city of Philadelphia, which has 1.5 million people.
Some experts are praising the New York police department’s aggressive crime-prevention tactics, notably the so-called Stop And Frisk policy, which has rooted out dozens of illegal guns.
But critics argue that it has led to hundreds of thousands of young blacks and Latinos being stopped without cause.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-20536201
Michael Bloomberg #108
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_New_York_City
A lot of problems with that, Peggy…
1) Michael Bloomberg was registered as an independent in 2012 and had been since 2007. Prior to that he was a Republican. Now he’s a Democrat.
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/02/19/politifact-michael-bloomberg-is-registered-as-a-democrat-but-is-he-accepted-as-one/
2) Bloomberg was mayor of NYC from 2002- 2013, which would include the “Summer of Blood” mentioned in your article.
3) Even if Bloomberg had been a Republican in 2012, one anecdote is not data. Violent crime had been falling for quite some time before he became mayor. You’d have to show evidence from lots of different cities in lots of different time periods to show that cities are less violent under Republican leadership than Democrat leadership.
1) The Wikipedia link says he was a republican in 2012, which means he ran and was elected as a republican. When he changed to an Independent and Democrat was done doesn’t change the fact he declared he was a republican in 2012 when he was mayor.
2) The BBC article also included crime rates for several other Democrat run cities, validating the high crime rate was systemic not antidotal.
3) I don’t need to provide proof between the crime rates of democrat vs republican run cities. It’s right there in plain view for those who will admit it. Detroit? NY? Chicago? Seattle? LA?
How about you providing a current republican run major city with a higher or as high crime/murder rate as any of the above listed cities run by democrats?
1) The Wikipedia link says he was a republican in 2012,
No, it doesn’t. On the chart, it says he served from 2002 to 2013 and lists his party affiliation as Republican, but there is a footnote next to that party affiliation. This is what the footnote says:
Michael R. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before registering as a Republican in 2001 and running for mayor. He then registered as an Independent in 2007, and re-registered as a Democrat in 2018 after saying he would consider a run for the presidency in 2020.[21]
So he was an independent in 2012, not a Republican.
When he changed to an Independent and Democrat was done doesn’t change the fact he declared he was a republican in 2012 when he was mayor.
No, he did not declare he was a Republican in 2012.
2) The BBC article also included crime rates for several other Democrat run cities, validating the high crime rate was systemic not antidotal.
Because they are cities, not because they are Democrat-run. Again, I’ve asked for evidence that mahor cities become more violent when they are run by Democrats than when they are run by Republicans. No one has provided any such evidence.
3) I don’t need to provide proof between the crime rates of democrat vs republican run cities. It’s right there in plain view for those who will admit it. Detroit? NY? Chicago? Seattle? LA?
That’s not what I asked for, and would in fact be less persuasive than the evidence I did ask for. Major cities have plenty of differences between each other that controlling for all those factors in order to single out simply the party affiliation of their leaders would be quite difficult. Again, the best evidence to prove that party leadership is responsible for the violence would be to show how the same cities function under Republican vs. Democratic leadership, and whether crime falls under Republican leadership within a given city.
How about you providing a current republican run major city with a higher or as high crime/murder rate as any of the above listed cities run by democrats?
See above, re: comparing given cities to themselves under different party leadership, rather than comparing different cities. Also, I’m not the one making a positive claim here: I’m expressing skepticism toward the positive claim and asking for evidence that proves it. No one has provided any.
Re: “…suggesting major cities are violent because they are run by Democrats is thus mistaking correlation with causation.”
Wow. Denial times 1000. Not surprised at all.
If you have evidence that cities become less violent when they are run by Republicans and more violent when they are run by Democrats, present it. Asking for this evidence is not “denial.”
Ten incontrovertible things liberals don’t want to hear:
First, the top ten homeless cities are sanctuary cities, all led by Democrats.
Second, the top-ten “most dangerous” are led by Democrats.
Third, the top-25 “most dangerous” are mostly Democrat-led, and among the poorest and least employed, with weak infrastructure, tax base and incentives for private investment.
Fourth, among the 25 “most dangerous,” most face stifling poverty of 18 and 39 percent, against the national average of 12. 3 percent. These Democrat-led cities are America’s poorest.
Fifth, most of these cities suffer unemployment rates from 4.4 and 9.3 percent, versus 3.7 nationally.
Sixth, of the 20 “least healthy” cities, all but four are Democrat-led.
Seventh, while these mayors wrestle difficult issues, most oppose policies promoted by President Trump that are bringing prosperity to the rest of the country, such as lower taxes, less regulation, incentives for business investment, stronger law enforcement, cooperation with federal immigration officials, border security, comprehensive anti-drug policies, and local responsibility for declining tax base.
Eighth, most are in anti-gun coalitions, focused on restricting Second Amendment rights, favoring policies at cross-purposes with allowing citizens to protect themselves. While each is different, many favor gun-control, bans on concealed carry and higher minimum wages – all proven misfires.
Ninth, taken as a whole – the mayors are pursuing conflicted policies, on the numbers not breaking cycles of intergenerational crime, poverty, unemployment, dependence, employers fleeing tax burdens, untrained employees, accessible private health care, environmental stewardship and personal fitness.
Tenth, in closing: These cities can do better. That is what democracy is for. If the policies and leadership are not working, there is an option – especially as America’s economy is thriving and cities are seeing a renaissance in investment, employment, income, health and safety: Elect new leaders. The numbers are compelling, so are elections.
Not a single citation? Really?
Seventh, while these mayors wrestle difficult issues, most oppose policies promoted by President Trump that are bringing prosperity to the rest of the country, such as lower taxes, less regulation, incentives for business investment, stronger law enforcement, cooperation with federal immigration officials, border security, comprehensive anti-drug policies, and local responsibility for declining tax base.
Come on, man. This gives away the game: this is not serious analysis, it’s partisan posturing.
I’ll repeat what I asked for the first time, since it doesn’t appear in your comments here:
“But perhaps there is data showing that major cities have less violent crime when they are run by Republicans; if so I’d be interested to see it.”
Re: “Come on, man. This gives away the game: this is not serious analysis, it’s partisan posturing.”
Sometimes you just have to laugh out loud. This is pretty funny coming from the likes of Chris Souza. Completely and utterly oblivious of his own behavior. What a tool.
Of the top 25 “most dangerous,” most are Democrat-led and all but one have poverty rates between 18 to 39 percent. The national average is 12.3 percent.
Of the top 25 “most dangerous” American cities, on top of poverty between 18 and 39 percent, most have unemployment between 4.4 and 9.3 percent. The national average is 3.7 percent.
So, these Democrat mayors – with good intention – are leading cities deep in poverty, weak on tax base, infrastructure, employers, trained citizens, and policies to attract corporate investment. They lead the nation in murder, manslaughter, robbery and aggravated assault.
Two last data sets stand out. They relate to cities deemed “least healthy,” based on available health care, clean environment, and personal fitness. The first includes Detroit and Memphis, adding Brownsville (TX), Laredo (TX), Augusta (GA), Shreveport (LA), Gulfport (MS), Fort Smith (AR), Jackson (MI), and Corpus Christi (TX). All are led by Democrat mayors, except Corpus and Gulfport.
The second list of “least healthy,” on different data, include Shreveport, adding Beckley (WV), Pine Bluff (AK – with a crime rate 383 percent higher than average), Hammond (LA), Mobile (AL), Albany (GA), Monroe (LA), Florence (SC), Gadson (AL), and Macon (GA). All but two are Democrat-led.
Bob Woodson says the left has abandoned all pretense of striving for social justice:
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight
Can the left lead a country they hate?
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight
Re: “Can the left lead a country they hate?”
The left seems to think so. Take the absurd left-wing propagandist-clown Chris Souza for example.
I love America, including its cities. The line here seems to be that American cities are violent, homeless-infested sh*tholes, that most Americans are idiots and shouldn’t vote, and that the majority of Americans who support Black Lives Matter and police reform are far-left communists. “Loving America” to many on the right doesn’t seem to involve loving most Americans.
Chris, yes we are angry and intolerant people. We are rightly angered when the citizens in big cities are murdered like they live in a war zone! We are rightly angered at Americans who have deliberately made a choice to use drugs and drop out to let someone else care for their keep. We are intolerant of those takers for good reasons! Chris I wish I was a more eloquent writer so I could show you more clearly what we are up against. But, all I can do is try in my own clumsy way and hope you will get it.
We feel that most Americans are competent, but thanks to a growing number that have drifted into an over-dependence on government, that’s a big problem! These people are taught by the left that its okay to sponge off society as long as they vote democrat. They are told its ok to take the road of least resistance. They have been taught that its always somebody else’s problem to take care of their needs and when they are don’t, then they are told it’s okay to steal or extort to get what they are [entitled] too! Democrats are always eager to make excuses for rioting.
Yes Chris, these unproductive and sometimes criminal citizens make us angry and frustrated. The scary part is their ignorant and greedy vote is equal to ours! We know how easy it is for the left to flood the ballot box with votes from the non-producers. We know that soon the informed and self supporting type of voter will be outnumbered. Then the mob will vote in whoever and whatever they want, we saw that happen in California. Now we have this progressive caused disaster in Sacramento. The BS coming out of Sacto. has us divided and frustrated to the point of near anarchy. Millions of conservatives have no representation in the capitol.
Those of us who are still productive workers are like an endangered species in this state. We’re concerned about the future of America and about our place in it.
We recognize the left for what they are. They will use low tactics to achieve goals, in this case any high political office. Yes, it’s absolutely true, the evidence is everywhere! The gullible left has become controlled by the seriously unamerican people in high places that embrace Marxist principles for change and that should scare the hell out of people who still believe our founding fathers were right. The tactics today are so obvious and they are all geared to social unrest and the destruction of democracy! I can’t stress this enough, the left will use whatever will cause trouble…crime, corruption, distress and dysfunction in order to achieve their political ends. They have been guilty of using class warfare and mob rule for decades. They are responsible for undermining trust in our police and in our form of government. They are systematically rewriting our history to fit their narrative. This might have sounded over the top paranoid 20 years ago, but today… nah… this is pretty mainstream thinking among conservatives.
Once this old society is destroyed from within the new, iron fisted government will arise and the socialists will win.
These are the things that concern us Chris, but I wouldn’t expect you to know, because you are operating on the narrative created by the left.
Before Rudy Julianne became the mayor of NYC crime rates ran high, muggings were rampant, graffiti was everywhere. After bed been mayor for a short time things began to turn around until it was declared one of the safest big cities in America. The more Democrat PC socialist it’s mayoral office becomes the more crime ridden it’s become.
Someone please explain how defunding or eliminating the police and being soft on crime will lead to less crime. That is the reality with Democrat mayors. That is the issue.
Democrat run cities will continue to be plagued with high crime until such time that they are voted out of office. A political party that attacts police departments and calls for defunding for the actions of a very few is a political party that is on the road to self destruction. Works for me. Keep it up Democrats, you vile cretins from hell.
“A political party that attacts police departments and calls for defunding for the actions of a very few”
But no “political party” has done that. Left-wing protesters, which include a mix of Democrats as well as leftists who would never be caught dead identifying as “Democrats” because they see us as spineless moderates who are no different from Republicans, have. But the Democratic Party leadership has not taken this position. Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for president, has explicitly rejected it:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/joe-biden-defund-the-police/index.html
As for “hating America,” the current president begins each day by going online and talking about which American individuals, groups, and institutions he hates. Joe Biden doesn’t do that.
Your party is going to have to realize at some point before November that antifa isn’t running against Trump. Hell, Bernie Sanders isn’t even running against Trump, much to the Trump campaign’s chagrin. Joe Biden is not the far left, he isn’t a communist or agitator, and watching Republicans pretend to believe that he is is just sad. He’s a moderate who stresses reaching across the aisle.
Your party is also going to have to realize that most Americans want a president they don’t have to think about every day. If we want to calm down the culture war and division that has reached a boiling point over the past four years, we can’t have a president who exploits these divisions with every tweet and utterance. This is why Biden’s lead in the polls right now is stronger than any lead Hillary Clinton ever had.
The following is commentary from 2015 at the “Woodpile Report”–
http://www.woodpilereport.com/
Ol’ Remus
” With all the recent troubles we’re again being invited to an honest and open conversation about race, or said differently, the browbeatings will be resumed. Try this for honest and open: many of us, probably most of us, are tired of your whining, your so-called grievances, your violence and crime, your insults and threats, your witless blather and pornographic demeanor—all of it. You’re not quite 13% of the population yet everything has to be about you, all day, every day. With you, facts aren’t facts, everything’s a kozmik krisis, and abusive confrontations are your go-to.
Here’s the thing: some of us despise you, although fewer than you believe, but most of us plain don’t care about you or your doings. There was a time when we did care, but you betrayed our good will and played us for fools. We laugh about it now, but we actually believed you wanted equal opportunity and mutual respect and to live in harmony—all that stuff. Ain’t it a hoot? Imagine our embarrassment.
We talk among ourselves just like you do. It’s true, we have “frank and open discussions” when you’re not around. Why? Partly because it’s exhausting to tippy-toe around you. Partly because you think it’s your celestial right to tell us what we can say. And partly because you’re alarmingly aggressive or painfully dim-witted by turns. We never know which “you” will pop out of the box, or when. But mainly because you’ve revealed yourself as grasping opportunists without honor or principle. There’s your deal-breaker. There’s more.
During the recent riots you expected us to believe heisting snack food then torching the place was “standing up for justice”. When we didn’t buy it, you told us the looting and arson wasn’t done by the rioters after all, no, all the bad stuff was done by rioters from out of town. Apparently you think it makes a difference to us. And if we don’t fall for that one, you tell us you’re the real victims, you’re the ones “hit hardest” because the neighborhoods you looted and burned are, um, looted and burned.
We’ve never stood in your way but we don’t really care if you have good neighborhoods or not. The evidence says you don’t care either, unless we build and maintain them for you, what your enablers call “investments in urban communities.” They don’t mention the return on our past “investments”. Our former neighborhoods weren’t improved by your arrival. Your contempt for ordinary civility tells us no level of “investment” would make a difference. Listen up. It’s simple. Just like our neighborhoods are our responsibility, so are your neighborhoods your responsibility, not ours. Your clownish leaders will tell you otherwise but they’ve always been your responsibility and they always will be your responsibility. Accept it or don’t, you’re the ones who live in them. There’s more.
Your air conditioned, smart phone equipped, EBT-financed “poverty” doesn’t wash to begin with, yet you’d have us believe poverty causes crime. There’s no payday for assault and rape and random killing. Police say 20% of your criminal violence is related to dope-dealing, okay, business disputes of a sort, but it says the rest of it is largely pro bono. We also notice you have a working knowledge of jury nullification and take pride in not “snitching”, typical gang behavior.
We say “what you think, you do. What you do, you are.” We know what you think—we hear it every waking minute. We know what you do. How could we not know what you are? Just so it gets said, crime causes poverty. It drives away productive people, their businesses and the opportunities you said you wanted. More bad news: you’re free to accuse them of anything you wish but they’re not coming back.
Schools haven’t been educating our kids for a long time. They’re too busy conjuring up new ways to teach yours, in fact, we’re beginning to think yours are the only ones who matter. There’s always some new scheme claiming dazzling success which, in the end, amounts to handing out the answers with the tests, or taking the annoying hard stuff out of the coursework, or entering unearned grades by hand. Whatever they’re doing they’re doing it wrong. Your kids are telling us, in every way they know how, they have neither the interest nor the inclination for academics. Perhaps we should listen. If what they want is “out” it’s worth considering and probably worth encouraging.
You tell us the schools have “failed to meet their needs.” And what are their needs, pray tell? Higher standards and tougher tests? Stricter rules and a dress code? Or some alternate universe where credit is earned for putting teachers in the ER, or for a string of abortions before the tenth grade? If you’d tell us what their needs are we’d at least know what needs we’re failing to meet. Until then we’ll mark it down for what it is, another lame excuse. They’re supposed to be schools, not day care or orphanages or theme parks.
You pester us with the “civil rights movement” of fifty years ago as though it happened last week, with tedious 1960s footage and cloying voice-overs, in an endless loop, like Groundhog Day, decade after decade. It’s understandable, you haven’t met any real resistance since those days. Breaking news: none of it matters any more, it all devolved into just another swindle, an extortion racket, “pay up or we’ll make a stink—and the bad optics are on you”.
Schools now teach something called White Privilege, which claims no overt act is necessary for us to be racist, in fact, absence of such acts is said to be direct evidence. It’s the “original sin” concept in a different wrapper, meaning our putative racism is bone deep and can’t be discharged by good works. Even so, they say we must atone in perpetuity for being white. They suggest we devote our lives in selfless service to you. No. Sorry. Whatever white privilege there may be, it isn’t enough. In fact, being subjected to White Privilege prattle is worth a couple of privileges.
Speaking of privilege, 60% of your college grads—and 20% of all of you—are employed by government. The intent is to create an artificial middle class of course, hence the trivial positions with imaginative titles and weighty salaries. In the lower reaches it’s the quota hires, typically unqualified. It’s a great offer. You pretend you’re doing something useful and we pretend to believe you. The rest of your grads are largely diversity directors, window dressing, teachers of dubious “studies” and improbable “histories”, and similar warehousing schemes for the otherwise unemployable. It’s as good as it’s ever going to get, except for those on the skinny end of the bell curve—for whom we have genuine, i.e., earned respect. You’d be a fool to leave it on the table, for as long as it lasts.
So here’s the deal. If you want to know what we really think of you, the answer is we don’t, unless you’re making yourself unavoidable or we’re cleaning up your latest mess. We can safely rely on you to make astonishingly irresponsible choices and blame us for the consequences. And you’ll demand we make good on them for you. We won’t take a chance on your sincerity ever again. Take it somewhere else, you have no credibility left with us. You’re a net liability, predictable to the point of surety. So we attend to our own lives and our own problems. It’s as it should be. We recommend it. As for you, frankly my dear, we don’t give a damn.”