Bleg

KevinLeave a comment

OK, I want some help here.

Awhile back I linked to a post at Rick’s Notes that stated that:

The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial.

  This was based on a post at Extrano’s Alley which cited a report from Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood to the House of Commons in 2000. The inspector states:

Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. The adjustment is made only in respect of figures shown in one part of the Annual Criminal Statistics. In another part relating to the use of firearms, no adjustment is made. A table of the number of homicides in which firearms were used in England and Wales will therefore differ according to which section of the annual statistics was used as its base. Similarly in statistics relating to the use of firearms, a homicide will be recorded where the firearm was used as a blunt instrument, but in the specific homicide statistics, that case will be shown under “blunt instrument”.

Many countries, including the United States, do not adjust their statistics down in that way and their figures include cases of self defence, killings by police and justifiable homicides. In Portugal, cases in which the cause of death is unknown are included in the homicide figures, inflating the apparent homicide rate very considerably.

(My emphasis.)

In 2001, Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen wrote a column which included this statement:

More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain’s 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as “vandalism.” The report lays much of the blame on the police’s desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.

Britain’s justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.

“American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition.” Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. “With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,” the report concludes.

This backs up what Inspector Greenwood asserts, but I can’t find that specific report.

What I have found is an document from the Home Office dated April 2013 on their official “counting rules” (PDF) that does not mention convictions or even prosecution.

That’s all.

I’d REALLY like to find something definitive on this question, but I’m coming up blank. Help?

New Playground

KevinLeave a comment

Apparently, some time ago I became a member of the website Quora.com.  I recently discovered that they discuss gun control there.

I’ve been spending some quality time there, rather than here.  I figure the TSM audience is what it is after ten years, so I’m spreading the love to a new group.  So far it’s been kinda fun, since most of my research is already done, and all I have to do is dig through my archives for the data and quotes I want to use.  It appears that most of what I post is new to people there.

(*sigh*)

My work is never done.

“…there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.”

KevinLeave a comment

Do tell.

A reader sent me an email early this morning with a link to this Pro Publica story – Loyal Obama Supporters, Canceled by Obamacare. It’s hard to resist schadenfreude when you read stuff like:

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.

Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietitian and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me.

The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.

Awwwww. Sucks when karma runs over your dogma, doesn’t it?

Hammack recalled his reaction when he and his wife received a letters from Kaiser in September informing him their coverage was being canceled. “I work downstairs and my wife had a clear look of shock on her face,” he said. “Our first reaction was clearly there’s got to be some mistake. This was before the exchanges opened up. We quickly calmed down. We were confident that this would all be straightened out. But it wasn’t.”

Do tell. I guess he was in favor of Obamacare before he found out that he, personally, would be paying for it.

But wait! It gets better!

In a speech in Boston last week, President Obama said those receiving cancellation letters didn’t have good insurance. “There are a number of Americans — fewer than 5 percent of Americans — who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident,” he said.

“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage, and it turned out not to be so good.”

What is going on here? Kaiser isn’t a “bad apple” insurer and this plan wasn’t “cut rate.” It seems like this is a lose-lose for the Hammacks….

What’s going on here? Obama LIED. Again. And it is a “lose-lose” situation.

But here’s the pullquote for me:

“In a few cases, we are able to find coverage for them that is less expensive, but in most cases, we’re not because, in sort of pure economic terms, they are people who benefited from the current system … Now that the market rules are changing, there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.”

“There’s an aspect of market disruption here that I think was not clear to people,” (Kaiser Permanente spokesman Chris) Stenrud acknowledged. “In many respects it has been theory rather than practice for the first three years of the law; folks are seeing the breadth of change that we’re talking about here.”

In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. For the Left, it isn’t results that matter, it’s intention. Read on:

So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing.

That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy.

Wait – a LIBERAL is threatening to “Go Galt”? And I have to object here. Earlier in the piece the author states that Hammack and Brothers make not much more than four times the federal poverty level, or “about $62,000 for a family of two.” In San Francisco. And he’s an architect. One: How does a couple live on $62k in San Francisco, and Two: If he’s an architect, what does he design, playground equipment?

“We’re not changing our views because of this situation, but it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said. “We’re gratified that the press is on the case, but frustrated that the stewards of the ACA don’t seem to have heard.”

Or care.  And you’re lefties from San Francisco.  I wouldn’t expect you to change your views if Obama himself put the muzzle of a re-educator to your skull and pulled the trigger.  Or as one commenter put it:

…they would follow Obama off a cliff, then thank him when at the bottom, he finished them off with a bayonet.

There you go talking about “death panels” again.  Perhaps they should donate $500,000 to Organizing for America. Maybe then they can get a waiver, too.

Oh, and by all means, read the comments to the piece.

So How About if People Start Policing the City on Their Own?

KevinLeave a comment

So a couple of thugs commit an armed robbery on a convenience store in Reading, PA and are confronted by an armed citizen outside the store who orders them to stop and stay still until the police arrive.  They don’t.  Said citizen shoots and kills both robbers.

The families of the criminals are outraged, and want the citizen charged for “taking the law into his own hands.”  Says one:

How about if people just start running around here, policing the city on their own? How much worse is it going to get?

I guess he’s never heard of Sir Robert Peel and his Nine Principles of Modern Policing, number seven of which is:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

How much worse? Wrong question. How much better?

So, I Was at the Used Sports Equipment Place Today…

KevinLeave a comment

Never mind what I was there for.  One of the salesguys was helping me out, and I looked around the place and snorted.  He asked why. 

“You’ve got stuff for everything but my sport,” I said. 

“What’s your sport?” he asked. 

“I’m a shooter,” I replied.

He looked around for a second (guy’s in his VERY early twenties at a guess) and confided with a smile on his face, “Until a month ago, I’d never shot a gun.”

“Fun, isn’t it?” I asked.

“Yeah, I keep trying to get them to take me again!!”

This is why we’re winning.

A View from the Inside

KevinLeave a comment

I received an email yesterday afternoon from a reader who did not want to leave it as a comment because his name and email might be attached to it by Disqus.  Here it is:

I’m long-time reader and sometime commenter. I wanted to comment on your post on “Government is Magic”, but for reasons which will become obvious I didn’t want my name or e-mail associated with my comment publicly. If you believe any of this is worth sharing feel free to do so, without my name or e-mail address associated of course.

I work for the company responsible for the Obamacare web site fiasco. I don’t work for the Federal division, but a different one. I can tell you from personal experience that the problems that caused the web site to fail are institutional.

If you or I were going to embark on a project we’d try to get the most competent people in each area of expertise required in an effort to make the project a success. That’s not the way this company does things. First, especially if the project is highly visible, they make sure that the people assigned to the project are the “right” people. Not “right” as you or I would understand it, namely competent, with a strong work ethic, and capable of delivering. Oh no, the “right” people are politically connected, they belong to the “correct” groups of people, or they’re people who others wish to see advance (often despite their incompetence). So it’s more important that the project leader be a Hispanic woman than that the project leader have any actual experience with the technology, or even be capable of doing the job. Just as it was more important to give the project to a company whose VP was a black woman than that it have a proven track record of getting similar projects done successfully. All the better if that VP went to Princeton with a certain FLOTUS. Even better if money went to a certain re-election campaign.

A dozen competent developers could have delivered a functional web site, their compensation would have cost one or two percent of what the contract brought in. Doing so, however, would have required an acknowledgement that such people were required for the success of the project, or that a functional web site had anything to do with such success.

I used to think the problems I saw were localized to my little corner of the company, but it seems the problems are with the company mentality. Worse, as far as the company is concerned this was a big win. They made a TON of money, and they’re managing (so far as the media is concerned) to foist the blame off onto others. They’ll now make a ton MORE money fixing a system that should never have been broken in the first place.

I’ve been doing this for over 25 years, I’ve worked for a bunch of companies, and this is the first time I’ve ever been ashamed to have my name connected to the company that writes my paycheck.

Shame? I thought the Left had effectively destroyed that concept.