Earl Harris III
Sorry folks, but this is gonna be a long post. For people like Patty Meyers (Anderson) and Michael Wetzel, who admit to lacking patience and seldom read beyond the first paragraph of any longer-looking post, you can stop now and not waste your time. For those who have greater patience, by all means read on, remembering that you can quit at any time.
After reading the Jim’s post #11407, I am now suffering from a severe reaction to what he claims to be the “obvious” right answers to all that ails us.
I need to get a few things off my chest. You can choose to view my comments below as simply an expression of my thoughts and concerns and/or as a direct challenge to debate Jim’s claims. I can only wait and wonder when and how Jim might respond. He’s told us, rather sanctimoniously IMHO, that he refuses to debate anyone on this Message Forum. For now, I’m going to take him at his word.
First, it’s interesting to see the reaction that some of you had, including me, regarding Jim’s cherry-picked effort that sought, by association, a connection between the political affiliation of mayors and retail crimes committed in selected large cities. I suspect that many of you found yourselves scratching your heads, followed by a compulsive desire to either disprove or cast aspersions on his assertions by quoting other statistics found in Internet searches of your own.
Some of you found many studies, as I did, conducted by a wide variety of organizations using differing methodologies that compared political affiliation with all sorts of topics.
MK, for instance, offered even more damning evidence of Democrats with his post.
Katie offered up in her post, #11416, a different view that seemed to contradict Jim’s sure-fire pronouncements. Her set of statistics sought to bring balance to the table. In her thoughtful and measured concluding paragraph she said: “Probably it would be better to say we have serious problems in the US and they need to be acted on, but simply finding statistics that seems to make a point for you does nothing to help the issues, all it does is continue to divide.” I have to say that I agree with her.
I will admit that my knee-jerk reaction was the same as many of you as I went in search of likely biased statistics supported by methodologies more suitable to my worldview. But, after a short while, I began by asking myself, “ Why did Jim settle in on retail crimes and why did he specifically hone in on big cities? Why not murder rates in midsize cities, for example, or illicit drug or gun deaths in rural towns?,” I thought.
I’ll leave it up you to be the judge, but one possible reason was the attempt to follow up his cherry-picked statistical link with a clarion call to those “on the fence” to vote Republican. He said, and I quote: “See the pattern? Democrats do not enforce the law. Republicans do. Later, he authoritatively adds the “obvious”, namely, “R’s are for enforcing the law.” At least he is consistent. It comports with his embrace of the “bumper sticker” approach to many of his political statements. But, use of caveman-like slogans that often amount to little more than "Republicans, good! Democrats bad!”, fails to adequately address some very complicated issues and difficult problems. My opinion, of course.
While continuing to peruse information on the Internet, I began to think of another question: “If we are really interested in understanding what towns, cities, states or regions are “best”, why choose to limit yourself to linking crime rates with political identity or governance, solely?
Why not, for instance, combine crime rates with other measures of livability, in seeking out the best of the “best or the best” or conversely, “the worst of the worst”? Why not combine categories such as healthcare, education, economy, physical natural resources, along with crime and corrections. US News does this. Click on the PDF below to view their list of "best" and "worse" States.
https://www.usnews.com/media/best-states/overall-rankings-2023.pdf
It has been said that statistics often lie. Hopefully more often than not they don’t, but they certainly can be manipulated to suit one’s purposes.
I want to stop at this point, though I have much more to share in future postings regarding my opinions concerning Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, Richard Deshong’s much needed and appreciated contributions, Donald Trump and the "Rule of Law" and what I believe was a recent but unsuccessful attempt to gaslight Mike Lorts on this Message Forum. I will also continue to hope that one day we can have a civil debate regarding immigration including the problems and potential solutions to help address the mess at our southern border with Mexico.
I will not be hesitant in sharing my opinions. I am willing to enter into a civil discourse, even"debate" with anyone, on any topic, at any time.
|