( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...

Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Statistics for USA (2000) would be for William J Clinton's America, not
George W Bush's.



If the numbers were broken down by age, you might actually have a valid
point. Or not. Without that information, you can't pin this on any
particular president.

The valid point is that Incarceration rates for 2000 can not be George W
Bush's rates, as the magazine claimed, since he didn't take office until
2001. If the magazine called "UTNE" can't even that that point of well
based fact correct, I wouldn't trust them for much else.

Just goes to show how easy it is to brainwash liberal Democrats, eh?

Steve

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Zing wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Jim wrote:


For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Yeah, we have a well-deserved rep in this country for being the
imprisonment capital of the universe, along with one of the few capital
punishment nations among western democracies. Oh...we also have a a dumb

ass as POTUS.

Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Also, look at the FBI crime statistics. Many violent crimes are on the
decrease. Coincidence? I think not.

....farting in your general direction....


What? You're denying we have a dumb ass as president?

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal
level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Would you care to rethink that statement?

Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

Here are some summary statistics from the US Dept. of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sent.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm

For 2000, only 6% of all felons went to the federal pen. This did not
include the inmates in county and municipal lock ups (stats below). I
imagine years prior to 2000 would show about the same percentages.

State legislatures & the Governors enact the STATE laws. Offenders of STATE
law go to STATE prison.

The US Congress, US Senate and the POTUS enact the FEDERAL laws. Offenders
of FEDERAL law go to FEDERAL prison. So how is the POTUS responsible, say,
for a wife beater in an Indiana prison, a burglar in Florida, or a boat
thief in Deale Maryland? ]

Here's a little cut 'n paste from their web site:

In 2000, State and Federal courts convicted a combined total of nearly
984,000 adults of felonies -- State courts convicted an estimated 924,700
adults and Federal courts convicted 59,123 adults (accounting for 6% of the
national total.)

In 2002, 6.7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on
parole at yearend 2002 -- 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32
adults.


State and Federal prison authorities had under their jurisdiction 1,440,655
inmates at yearend 2002: 1,277,127 under State jurisdiction and 163,528
under Federal jurisdiction.


Local jails held or supervised 737,912 persons awaiting trial or serving a
sentence at midyear 2002. About 72,400 of these were persons serving their
sentence in the community.


States spend more on criminal justice than municipalities, counties, or the
Federal government.

After dramatic increases in the 1980s and 1990s, the incarceration rate has
recently leveled off.

The number of prisoners under sentence of death at yearend 2002 decreased
for the second consecutive year.

Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

Property crime rates continue to decline.

Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates
for men and women are getting closer in recent years.

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

The estimated number of arrests for drug abuse violations decreased slightly
from 2001 to 2002.


Theft rates continue to decline.

Burglary rates continue to decline

After declining since 1992, motor vehicle theft rates leveled off after
2000.

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest
level ever recorded in 2002.

My conclusion: The UTNE fish wrapper Jim gets is full of it. (no wonder they
have to give it away unsolicited) They've confused the 6.7 million people
who were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year end 2002 with
the 2.18 million (Fed, state, local) actually IN prison. Extreme liberals
love to play fast and loose with the truth, but it just makes them look
ridiculous to anyone who cares to look at the facts.

I'm not saying that the incarceration stats aren't frightening, but you'll
see that when prison rate increases, crime seems to go down! Who woulda have
thunk that?

I wonder if the new age libs of UTNE would advocate a wholesale amnesty for
all those poor incarcerated souls. It would be funny to see their faces at
their love-ins in Sedona AZ as crazed maniacs pilfered their Volvo wagons,
hauling off all those crystals and granola bars.

Regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Stanley Barthfarkle" wrote in message
om...

Incarceration rates in Bill Clinton's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) (Clinton as President in 2000) 2298 per 100,000

It should be obvious why Stalin's numbers are lower- (except, of course,
if
you're a moron) Stalin simply had millions of people killed, rather than
pay
to incarcerate them.


Stanley:

You're correct. It's hilarious that a new age rag like UTNE would even make
such a comparison or Bush vs. Stalin.
See http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
It's a personal web site but has an extensive bibliography.

34 - 50 MILLION deaths (maybe more) attributed to J. Stalin, excluding WW2.
Mao might even be higher. Kind of makes Hitler look like an amateur. It's
also funny in a tragic, unfathomable way that these monsters were the heroes
to many of the previous generation of libs. I used to argue these points in
the 1970's with many a tweedy, whiskered Marxist professor in college.

Regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Zing wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



What? You're denying we have a dumb ass as president?

Dumb, or dumb-ass?

Well, I'm not privy to the results of his IQ test. His SAT scores were
higher than average, but that and a buck twenty five get you a cup of
coffee. Yes, the man can and does mangle the English language, but despite
what we Usenet pundits think, this is not necessarily a reflection of
intelligence. Sheesh, the libs have been saying every Republican since Ike
is an idiot (Nixon excepted - their view painted him more of an evil genius,
and they were correct that he was evil, but wrong in thinking he was a
dastardly genius). Yea, Ike, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. are all idiots.
Bush 1 was even a wimp early in his campaign until the lazy lib press
finally got around to digging up his service as a WWII dive bomber pilot.

How come libs get it wrong so often? Why so recalcitrant? Are they too dumb
(or dumb-assed) to ever change strategy?

Regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


If the numbers were broken down by age, you might actually have a valid
point. Or not. Without that information, you can't pin this on any
particular president.

The valid point is that Incarceration rates for 2000 can not be George W
Bush's rates, as the magazine claimed, since he didn't take office until
2001. If the magazine called "UTNE" can't even that that point of well
based fact correct, I wouldn't trust them for much else.

Just goes to show how easy it is to brainwash liberal Democrats, eh?

The libs in this group all goosestep to the liberal media. They are just
borg's running like lemmings for the cliff. ; )



Steve

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Zing wrote:
What? You're denying we have a dumb ass as president?

At least he doesn't waste his time, cut and pasting articles from online web
sites. Bush is comfortable enough with his intelligence and life, that he
doesn't have to make up elaborate stories about his wife and boats he owns.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington
Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore,
were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard,
respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college
admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush),
neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C
grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while
his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and
Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks
were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest
scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.


"Zing" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Zing wrote:


Well, I'm not privy to the results of his IQ test. His SAT scores were
higher than average, but that and a buck twenty five get you a cup of
coffee. Yes, the man can and does mangle the English language, but despite
what we Usenet pundits think, this is not necessarily a reflection of
intelligence. Sheesh, the libs have been saying every Republican since Ike
is an idiot (Nixon excepted - their view painted him more of an evil
genius,
and they were correct that he was evil, but wrong in thinking he was a
dastardly genius). Yea, Ike, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. are all
idiots.
Bush 1 was even a wimp early in his campaign until the lazy lib press
finally got around to digging up his service as a WWII dive bomber pilot.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

wrote:

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington
Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore,
were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard,
respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college
admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush),
neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C
grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while
his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and
Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks
were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest
scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.




Grades?

Sheesh.

Bush may have been clever in his youth, but decades of booze and drugs
did him in. He can barely read. He has no mind for details. He speaks
like an idiot, and can't piece together complex sentences.

Feh.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...

Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Statistics for USA (2000) would be for William J Clinton's America, not
George W Bush's.



If the numbers were broken down by age, you might actually have a valid
point. Or not. Without that information, you can't pin this on any
particular president.

The valid point is that Incarceration rates for 2000 can not be George W
Bush's rates, as the magazine claimed, since he didn't take office until
2001. If the magazine called "UTNE" can't even that that point of well
based fact correct, I wouldn't trust them for much else.

Just goes to show how easy it is to brainwash liberal Democrats, eh?

Steve


UTNE Reader is a compilation of articles published elsewhere, often from
academic journals most people would not normally have access to.