snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03 October 2008, 10:26 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is online now
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,283
Default Change we can believe in?

Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago,
221 killed in Iraq. - Chicago is the worse combat zone.

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.

Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25%... highest in country.

Chicago school system one of the worst in country.

Sens. Barack Obama (D) & Dick Durbin (D),
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D),
Gov. Rod Blogojevich (D),
House leader Mike Madigan (D),
Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (D) (daughter of Mike),
Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley)

The leadership in Illinois .....all Democrats.

Right now they are all blaming each other for the failings listed above, since they can't blame Republicans, being there aren't any!

As a side note, according to a recent statement by Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley) "There is no Democratic Political Machine in Chicago."

I guess there must not be one, if he said so.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.

And, he is going to 'fix' Washington politics?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03 October 2008, 11:41 PM
Miki Fantastico's Avatar
Miki Fantastico Miki Fantastico is offline
 
Join Date: 22 March 2008
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 621
Default

Out of interest, are there any statistics for what it was like in Chicago say, ten years ago? It seems odd to talk about lack of change but then present only the facts for one given six-month period.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04 October 2008, 12:38 AM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,356
Default

And yet I'm not chompin' at the bit to move to Iraq.

Chicago's murder rate for the last 17 years:
Homicides 1990-2007
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 931
1994: 929
1995: 827
1996: 789
1997: 759
1998: 704
1999: 641
2000: 628
2001: 666
2002: 647
2003: 598
2004: 448
2005: 449
2006: 467
2007: 442

BTW 221, I'm guessing, is the number of coalition troops killed in Iraq. So, maybe we should compare that to the number of, um, say, cops killed in Chicago in that timeframe. That would be 2.

ETA: And we had a Republican governor until 2003. He's in prison, now, though.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04 October 2008, 12:40 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Has Barack Hussein "Hopey" Obama ever held an office that would give him any sort of control over crime in Chicago?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04 October 2008, 12:42 AM
Mateus's Avatar
Mateus Mateus is offline
 
Join Date: 07 September 2001
Location: Bridgeport, CT
Posts: 3,768
Reporter

One "Fact" that popped out at me:
Quote:
Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago,
221 killed in Iraq. - Chicago is the worse combat zone.
So no Iraqis died, then?

Even if you discount the Iraqis, there are roughly 3 million Americans in Chicago, and roughly 200,000 troops in Iraq. That means the ratio is 15:1 (again, roughly) when comparing Iraq to Chicago.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04 October 2008, 12:45 AM
Mateus's Avatar
Mateus Mateus is offline
 
Join Date: 07 September 2001
Location: Bridgeport, CT
Posts: 3,768
Reporter

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Has Barack Hussein "Hopey" Obama ever held an office that would give him any sort of control over crime in Chicago?
Barack Hussein Obama was a community organizer in Chicago. Al Capone once "organized" a "community" in Chicago. Barack Hussein Obama: worse than Al Capone.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04 October 2008, 01:02 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mateus View Post
Barack Hussein Obama was a community organizer in Chicago. Al Capone once "organized" a "community" in Chicago. Barack Hussein Obama: worse than Al Capone.
Oh, you so win!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04 October 2008, 01:27 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mateus View Post
One "Fact" that popped out at me:


So no Iraqis died, then?

Even if you discount the Iraqis, there are roughly 3 million Americans in Chicago, and roughly 200,000 troops in Iraq. That means the ratio is 15:1 (again, roughly) when comparing Iraq to Chicago.
To clarify the above a bit. A soldier in Iraq is 15 times more likely to be killed than is a citizen of Chicago. If staying alive was my only goal in life I would much rather be in Chicago than in Iraq.

The number of "murders" in the two time frames are similar but there are 2.8 million people in Chicago but only 0.16 million troops in Iraq.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04 October 2008, 01:47 AM
lyra_silvertongue's Avatar
lyra_silvertongue lyra_silvertongue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 September 2007
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 2,794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
And yet I'm not chompin' at the bit to move to Iraq.

Chicago's murder rate for the last 17 years:
Homicides 1990-2007
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 931
1994: 929
1995: 827
1996: 789
1997: 759
1998: 704
1999: 641
2000: 628
2001: 666
2002: 647
2003: 598
2004: 448
2005: 449
2006: 467
2007: 442

BTW 221, I'm guessing, is the number of coalition troops killed in Iraq. So, maybe we should compare that to the number of, um, say, cops killed in Chicago in that timeframe. That would be 2.
I'm impressed to see that the murder rate has dropped in half in the past 20 years.

Quote:
ETA: And we had a Republican governor until 2003. He's in prison, now, though.
[/quote]

Zing!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27 February 2010, 05:33 PM
jimnom
 
Posts: n/a
Default Painting the Town Beautiful

I remember when this e-mail full of statistics first started making its Forwarded rounds. I'm reasonably sure it was in 2004, and referred to statistics from the year 2003 (but maybe refered to 2004). I am even more sure about other things remembered from this not-too-distant time. And from what I remember, some of you have your numbers all wrong.

For starters, I remember that this statistic regarding deaths in Iraq originally referred to all combat-related deaths, including military and civilian. Considering that the number also included civilian deaths, we can look at the civilian population of Iraq, which is 31 million people. So, we've got 31 million people, plus 200,000 American soldiers. 31,200,000 people in an area where, in one 6 month period, there were 221 deaths.
31,200,000 div 221 = 141,176.47.

The stated population of Chicago at the time: 3 million. That's
3,000,000 div 292 = 10,273.97 (or 10,274).

If you lived in Chicago that year, you had a 1 in 10,274 chance of being murdered. That's right, in just one 6-month period, 1 out of every 10,000 Chicagoans ceased to exist by the hands of a fellow Chicagoan. By comparison, your odds of winning the average state lottery are about 1 in 67,000,000, meaning your chances of being murdered in Chicago that year were 6,521 times greater than winning the state lottery. (67mil div 10,274=6,521)

If you were in Iraq that year, your chances of being killed were 1 in 141,176. Based on those 2 numbers: 10,274 and 141,176, a person was 13.74 times as likely to be killed in the Peaceful City of Chicago that year as someone in War-torn Iraq.

I realize that people will say "I'm not an Iraqi, and I'm ONLY worried about the 200,000 soldiers that were there." Granted. But the statistic doesn't give the number for just U.S. military deaths that occurred in Iraq as a result of the military conflict during that 6 month period. Nor were we given any Iraqi-on-Iraqi violent crime statistics to add to the combat-related death rate. Obviously military and non-Iraqi civilians were at higher risk than the one in 141,000 number implies. But it was nonetheless 13 times safer being the average nobody in war-torn Iraq than it was being an average nobody in Peaceful Chicago, Illinois, US of A.

Also keep in mind: we're just talking about ONE U.S. city. Let's not forget all the other murders in every other U.S. city which occurred during that same 6 month period. I know, none of them were anyone you knew personally. So we can just act like those crimes never happened, right? Watership Down revisited.

I'm sorry, but the slanted and biased statistics and numbers posted in this thread (in an effort to color Chicago beautiful with mathematical illusion) are an epic and miserable fail. Congratulations, Chicago, for halving your murder rate in the past 12 years or so. Now if you live in Chicago, every six months fellow Chicagoans are only killing off every 1 in 20,000 of you instead of 1 in 10,000 of you. I can see how we'd call this 'progress'.

All these numbers and odds also reminds me that I really need to run out and waste a couple hundred dollars on the lottery this month ... NOT! The last statistic I heard regarding lotteries was that as little as 1/3 of the monies generated from state lotteries makes it to the people who the lottery was legalized for (i.e. school systems). The rest is used as high salaries to pay off everyone working for the states' legal gambling 'industries' (to keep those people 'honest'). Sounds like just another society-fleecing 'racket' to me.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01 March 2010, 05:13 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is online now
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,376
Roll eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnom View Post
By comparison, your odds of winning the average state lottery are about 1 in 67,000,000, meaning your chances of being murdered in Chicago that year were 6,521 times greater than winning the state lottery
False analogy, since it (erroneously) presumes that, like lottery numbers, all murder victims are randomly selected.

Quote:
If you were in Iraq that year, your chances of being killed were 1 in 141,176. Based on those 2 numbers: 10,274 and 141,176, a person was 13.74 times as likely to be killed in the Peaceful City of Chicago that year as someone in War-torn Iraq.
Aside from same false analogy problem, one might recognize the folly of attempting to draw any meaningful conclusion from comparing the killing rate in a single, densely-populated urban area with that of an entire country which is 700+ times the size but has only about three times the population.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01 March 2010, 05:53 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 66,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Has Barack Hussein "Hopey" Obama ever held an office that would give him any sort of control over crime in Chicago?
Or the school system?

No and no.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01 March 2010, 06:00 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
D'oh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnom View Post
I'm sorry, but [snip]
Can this phrase be eliminated from the lexicon? And also "for the simple fact that?"

TIA.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01 March 2010, 06:05 PM
Il-Mari's Avatar
Il-Mari Il-Mari is offline
 
Join Date: 27 January 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,909
Default

Also, does that 'killed in Iraq' figure include those people that were seriously harmed there, but actually died from their injuries after being moved somewhere else for treatment?

And does it include people who were killed as a result of friendly fire or other accidents? Because if you include accidental deaths in the Chicago figure, that's also going to change things, not that it would make the comparisons any more valid since we're not including actual Iraqis in the equation.

- Il-Mari
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01 March 2010, 06:14 PM
Jahungo's Avatar
Jahungo Jahungo is offline
 
Join Date: 23 May 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 5,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnom View Post
For starters, I remember that this statistic regarding deaths in Iraq originally referred to all combat-related deaths, including military and civilian.
Although there are obviously many difficulties in estimating the total number of deaths as the result of the war, it's clear that the numbers are far, far greater than this. Wikipedia actually has a good summary of the data, and the numbers are orders of magnitude higher - lower-end estimates would give averages of about 10,000 violent civilian deaths per year.

The numbers given in the OP are reasonably close to US military combat casualties in recent months.
ETA: Analyzing data from globalsecurity.org, there are no six month periods with exactly 221 US casualties, either named or named+reported. But periods of six months ending in early 2008 would have casualty counts in the the 200s. Currently US casualties are much lower in Iraq.

Last edited by Jahungo; 01 March 2010 at 06:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01 March 2010, 06:17 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnom View Post
That's right, in just one 6-month period, 1 out of every 10,000 Chicagoans ceased to exist by the hands of a fellow Chicagoan.
You're completely ignoring all the murdering tourists we get here. And people who come in from the suburbs to kill.

Quote:
I know, none of them were anyone you knew personally.
You absolutely, most assuredly do not know that.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01 March 2010, 06:26 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnom View Post
I remember when this e-mail full of statistics first started making its Forwarded rounds. I'm reasonably sure it was in 2004, and referred to statistics from the year 2003 (but maybe refered to 2004).
So why would Barry Nobama's name be attached to it at all?

I am even more sure about other things remembered from this not-too-distant time. And from what I remember, some of you have your numbers all wrong.

Quote:
If you lived in Chicago that year, you had a 1 in 10,274 chance of being murdered. That's right, in just one 6-month period, 1 out of every 10,000 Chicagoans ceased to exist by the hands of a fellow Chicagoan.
Statistics are fun! And you are wrong.

2003 Chicago proper population: 2,869,121

Deaths (2002) Total number : 22,298 (of which, 412 were infants under the age of 1 year)

Welcome to the boards. Enjoy your stay!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01 March 2010, 06:33 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is online now
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,376
Icon05

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Statistics are fun! And you are wrong.

2003 Chicago proper population: 2,869,121

Deaths (2002) Total number : 22,298 (of which, 412 were infants under the age of 1 year)
I don't follow -- how does that disprove the statement that one in 10,000 Chicagoans was murdered in a given year?

2,869,121 / 10,000 = 287

287 * 2 = 574 (to adjust 6-month figure to annual total)

574 < 22,298
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01 March 2010, 06:49 PM
I'mNotDedalus's Avatar
I'mNotDedalus I'mNotDedalus is offline
 
Join Date: 09 February 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,941
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyra_silvertongue View Post
I'm impressed to see that the murder rate has dropped in half in the past 20 years.
All me. And, yes, I'm a registered Unsungospat.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02 March 2010, 12:38 AM
boogers's Avatar
boogers boogers is offline
 
Join Date: 22 December 2000
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,126
Default

Okay, Dedalus, you get the credit. My cousin-in-law was a cop in Chicago and Mayor Daley told him to get the murder rate down. He left the job back in the 90's when he realized the task was beyond him.

I don't think he ever had a chance to discuss the matter with Obama.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.