Monday, November 22, 2004

American vs. Canadian Homicide Rates

I don't quite know what to make of this: A Statistical Comparison of Homicide Rates in the Prairie Provinces and Four American Border States, 1978-1992.

It is a very interesting study comparing homicide rates in the Canadian prairie provinces and the four American states that border Canada. It seems to undercut gun control advocates' argument that stricter gun laws in Canada make the country safer. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the paper's conclusions because I am not well enough versed with the issue yet. Perhaps, the paper is correct and Canada is not a good example for gun control advocates to cite. The paper mentions a few other countries with very low homicide rates (some with strict gun control laws and others without) that may or may not serve as better models.

The issue is worth a little more study. However, for now, I leave you with these questions (for which I do not know the answer). Are the Canadian prairie provinces' gun control laws significantly stricter in practice than those of the American border states? Does a higher-than-expected homicide rate have something to do with Canadians disobeying gun control laws (see Lufa.ca and ExploreNorth: Gun Control in Canada)? Is it possible that the homicide rates are comparable because enforcement is comparable?

I really don't know. Maybe you do. Leave a comment if you can enlighten me.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Bill and George in Episode 43: "A Tight Spot"

Editorial Note: Thanks to user zimv20 in the MacRumors.com Political Discussions & War Discussion Forum for this image.

The first one to Iraq wins!



Bill and George in Episode 43: "A Tight Spot" is an image obtained from the MacRumors.com Political Discussions & War Discussion Forum and renamed for use at Musings on America.
Originally uploaded by musingsonamerica.

This has been an Acme PhotoPost!

Did Alan Keyes Win or Lose?!

Now I'm not even sure...



Alan Keyes Conundrum is an image capture from Alan Keyes for Senate.
Originally uploaded by musingsonamerica.

This has been an Acme PhotoPost!

John Pushes Back...And So Do I

John, first off, thanks for your reply. Second off, you still don't get the point.

In a perfect world, every voter would carefully consider each relevant issue and judiciously assign a particular worth to that issue. Then, the voter would research the candidates' positions and compare those against his/her own fact-based, well-founded opinions. Rating the candidates (quantitatively or qualitatively) on each of these issues and adjusting for the weights already assigned to each, the voter would now add whatever X factor in personality or character that he/she sees fit. Now, with a well-thought, cogent analysis, the voter feels he/she is ready for the booth.

Guess what? It ain't gonna happen. Two voting pathologies demonstrate why you cannot place all of the blame on voters.

Many voters do not have the time to vote responsibly, John. People are worried about replacing that job that Bush lost them. They are concerned about their kid's flu or their wife's cancer. Myriad personal issues take priority over any election, even one that many of us perceive as historic and critical. Can you blame them? Even if you can, their crime is being misinformed. Complicit in that crime is a slew of partisan media talking heads and masterful campaign spin doctors who are all too happy to prey on the voters' lack of time. These people, seeking to manipulate voters, are at fault, because they have a responsibility to the process that they are abusing to achieve their own ends.

Your problem, John, is that you go beyond vilifying this set of voters for its lack of knowledge...You proceed to blame it for Iraq and deficits and stem cell research, etc., etc., etc. Those aren't the crimes they committed.

Many voters are one-issue voters. In my ideal scheme above, these voters essentially place an infinite value on one issue, making it unnecessary to be informed about the others. Is this wise? Absolutely not. However, it is a candidate's job to convince the people that his/her agenda is not only right, but important. The burden lies on campaigns to communicate the value of various issues. If they cannot, then the one-issue voters will continue to vote simplistically.

Again, you are too eager to blame these voters for things they neither committed nor endorsed. I agree that it is irresponsible of these people to make decisions so singularly. However, in their minds, they are proceeding correctly. This is moot, though. As with the time-tight voters, one-issue voters' presumed mistake has nothing to do with Iraq or deficits or stem cell research or No Child Left Behind. These individuals assented along one line to one issue and that's it. They did not place their rubberstamps on the rest of these positions.

This is why what you and others are doing, John, is particularly dangerous. There are millions upon millions of Bush voters who probably disagree with him on several issues that many of us consider important. By categorically shoving them into this anti-progress, pro-war, back-to-the-1870s evangelical nut job box, you force them either to completely agree with Bush's opinions or to judge their decision as unethical and mistaken. Since, as I said, people do not want to be mistaken, when pushed into a corner, they will become more extreme.

By housing the diffident and the wayward with the rabid and the radical, you make more Pat Robertsons, not more Arlen Specters. I say that this only hurts us. We need to find ways to break into the shells of those who do not have time to come out and listen. We need to show those pigeonholed into one debate that there are other, vital debates going on. We need to translate our message into terms that can win back the millions of winnable voters whom we lost in this cycle.

You suggest that I'm denying the voters' inherent agency. No. I want us to reach out to voters because they do have agency. What gives me hope is that many of them executed that agency to agree to the war, to the tax cuts, or to any number of other issues, in specific. Voters do not vote wholesale for their candidate's positions. If they did, Karl Rove would be correct and George Bush would have a mandate on the debate.

They don't, he doesn't, and you're wrong.

George Bush--Definitely Ad Nauseum

Editorial Note: Thanks to user Thomas Veil at MacRumors.com's Political Discussions & War Discussion Forum for pointing this out.

There have been a number of bad Presidents in American history, but I'm racking my brains to think of one so widely hated by the world. Partly, it's just more apparent because of the internet. Additionally, people around the world are more interested and concerned with global events than they once were (a simple by-product of more advanced communication). However, it is just dishonest not to attribute this to the magic of George Walker Bush.

What is it of which I speak? George Bush has been voted the best movie villain for his appearance in Farenheit 9/11 by readers of the British magazine, Total Film. A dose of satire is good for any administration, but feelings about Bush around the Earth have escalated from mild-manner fun-poking to true frustration and despair. And it is not fair to argue that F9/11 was skewed and that is the origin of all of these people's impressions. People see Bush everywhere--In the New York Times, the BBC, The Guardian, the Hindu, the Japan Times, Al-Ahram--everywhere. And this is what they think of the President of the United States, the leader of this nation, and, for now at least, the leader of the free world.

It's not the whole world's fault either. Total Film: Thanks for this Total Shame. We probably deserve it.