California homicides more than Iraq deaths

amazing, though I can't access the article for some reason or another.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47680
this one works.

Seems we're safer in Iraq than California.

 

I have a plan for scheduling Withdrawal
of our American Troops from California

BTW and more serious: We in Oklahoma are
still mad about in the 1930s Los Angeles
police were checking folks going across
the bridge across the Colorado River
between Arizona and California at
Needles, California. If you didn't have
$50, you were turned back and not allowed
to enter Claifornia.

We need to enact effective border contols
to keep unregistered Californians from
crossing into the USofA.

 

I guess it's a matter of perspective and skewed statistics. The raw numbers say that California is more dangerous. However, Los Angelos alone has something like 8 million people while US and British personnel are what? Under two hundred thousand? According to the US 2000 Census(linkie) California has more than thirty-three million people.

That's 2,394 out of 33,871,648 (0.00706%) compared to 905 out of 200,000 (0.45250%). California is safer.

Misleading articles such as that are one reason WND is a laughable news source.

 

Iraq has 26million+. If you compare Iraq and California, your safer in CA.

 

This does not seem to take in account all of the various Iraqi deaths. From the article above:

What happens to the number of deaths if we include Iraqi victims?

Another way to make ir fair would be to list the number of coalition forces killed in California compared to Iraq. I dare say the coalition forces are much safer in California, as is the average person.

Iraq is more deadly for both military forces and civilians.

 

By any measure our casualty rate is minimal. You could bring any ww2 general back from the dead and ask him about your plan. You could tell him you are going to invade a country like Iraq and you would conguer it and occupy it for several years and you would only have 2000 deaths. You know what he would do? He would send you to the luney bin for thinking you could keep you casualties that low. Or he would insist the Casualities would be 20 times higher.

 

You may be right Bunyon, but I don't think that is the point if this thread.

As pointed out above, this thread shows the untrustworthiness of WND as a news source.

 

You are porbably right C4K, I just jumped in with a thought. I'll turn it back over to you guys then. But woulden't putting the casualties into perspective be the whole point of such a comparison with California? Never mind, don't answer that, another thread another time then

 

The rebellion against the British in Iraq during WWII, supported by the German Luftwaffe, was defeated by Iraqforce. How many British actually died?

When you say "a country like Iraq", what do you mean? "Like" in what way?

 

Whatever point I was makeing is made, I'm moving on, so carry on?

 

What exactly was misleading or untrustworthy in the article?

It appears that the article does nothing but give raw numbers of comparison between "the homicide rate in California" and "the death rate suffered by U.S. and British military personnel in Iraq." It offers nothing more. It doesn't take a position that I can see. It reports the numbers and gives two perspectives: those who say this is good and those who say it is bad.

I would expect this kind of misleading analysis from Daisy. She has been known to be rather biased before. But frankly, Roger surprises me.

So again I ask, what exactly was misleading in the article itself (not the conclusions you draw from the article)?

 

Where would you rather spend a year as a civilian walking the sidewalks and driving the streets - in California or Iraq?

I would pick California.

 

Yeah, I keep letting those dern facts get in the way

 

What exactly was misleading or untrustworthy in the article?

It appears that the article does nothing but give raw numbers of comparison between "the homicide rate in California" and "the death rate suffered by U.S. and British military personnel in Iraq." It offers nothing more. It doesn't take a position that I can see. It reports the numbers and gives two perspectives: those who say this is good and those who say it is bad.

I would expect this kind of misleading analysis from Daisy. She has been known to be rather biased before. But frankly, Roger surprises me.

So again I ask, what exactly was misleading in the article itself (not the conclusions you draw from the article)? </font>[/QUOTE]It is misleading because it gives the false impression that Iraq is safer than California. WND's problem is not that fact that it tells flat out lies, but that it skews its stories to support its bias.

Yes, I do have a bias against sources like WND because they try to use the power of the press to manipulate the average reader.

What do you think the average reader of WND thought when they read these stats? They went off to the office water cooler armed with "facts" about how Iraq was safer than California and then were shot down by some liberal thinker who was able to put two and two together and not come up with five.

 

You are correct C4K. They botched this article badly. I still rely on their information, and believe them to be fair minded overall. They publish scathing news about this administration from time to time. Fair and balanced fits them as well as any and better than most.

 

Creative, very nit picky, and misleading on your part. It was obvious to all who read the article itself that WND compared raw numbers, and made the point that more people were killed in CA last year than US and British military personnel in Iraq. They made no attempt to compare the population. Therefore your objection is about something the article did not say. Which proves the point: The article was not misleading. Your were simply making a point that the article did not make.

You reached too far for that one.

 

Yeah, I keep letting those dern facts get in the way </font>[/QUOTE]Where??? I missed this. I don't come in here much anymore, but Daisy, I have never seen you let a fact get in the way of your opinion, and this was another case of it. When you look at what the article actually claimed, there was nothing misleading. You simply read more than the article actually said.

 

Really??? Are you sure you didn't confuse your conclusions from the articles actual statements? Roger, it is clear that you did. The article made no such comparison. You inferred it.

That's fine. Every news organization presents their news with a bias. But in this case, you simply read more than was actually said.

The same thing I did probably. And have thought all along. The war in Iraq is not nearly so costly as many would have us believe. But even this question reveals the point I am making ... that you have confused what people think after they read the article with what the article actually says.

This is a clear case of people reading their bias into a news story rather than letting the story simply say what it does.

The old line is that statistics can be made to prove whatever you want. RSR proved one thing; Daisy never actually proved anything, just made assertions, as did you. The point is that those are conclusions you drew from the raw facts of the article. I thought the article was interesting in that it gave two ways to interpret the data, both the liberal and conservative way.

Here's the question:

Is is true that there were "2,394 reported homicides in the Golden State last year"? Yes or no.

Is it true that there were "905 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq, chiefly Americans and Brits, during the same time period"? Yes or no

It is true that 2394 is 265% higher than 905? Yes or no.

The answer to all those question is "Yes," and if you read the article that is all that was claimed as fact. Therefore, the article is not misleading. You simply drew conclusions that the article did not make.

I realize this is a fine distinction, but it is a necessary one in critical thinking. You have to be able to separate your opinions from those of the source. You guys did not do that.

Face it, folks, you messed up on this one. The article was not misleading. It did not make the claims you make. Those were conclusions you drew from the facts presented.