TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2025
Not that it actually matters: As we noted this morning, there's no such thing as a real discussion in this, the most degraded of all possible worlds.
Also, when various people speak these days, there's no such thing as a fact.
This morning, we mentioned some of the misstatements which took place yesterday morning and afternoon in the Oval Office. Concerning crime in Washington, D.C., Mediate reports that CNN's Daniel Dale rose with an instant fact check.
We join his fact check in progress:
DALE (8/25/25): On the subject of D.C. crime, he said that it was an all-time crime high when he took office. He said the worst day was the day he came back.
Not even close to true. D.C. has not been even close to the all-time highs of the early 1990s.
Now, I know he’s raised questions, as the D.C. Police Union has, about the validity of some D.C. crime stats. But let’s just look at murder as an example, the least falsifiable kind of crime.
D.C. had 187 homicides in 2024. It was over 470 in a couple years in the early ’90s. So no, nowhere close to an all-time peak.
Is homicide "the least falsifiable kind of crime?" Ot's generally regarded as the most reliable crime statistic. It's assumed that the vast majority of homicides end up getting reported or discovered—and it's hard to reclassify a dead body, turning an actual homicide into some lesser offense.
Full disclosure! Over the weekend, we gathered homicide numbers, then and now, for some of the cities which have been getting mentioned of late. We'll start with D.C., then and now.
According to Wikipedia, here's how some of those numbers look:
Washington D.C. homicides:
1991: 482 (80.2)
1992: 443
1993: 454
1994: 399
[...]
2022: 203
2023: 274
2024: 187 (25.5)
We're starting at 1991 because that's where some of our other data sets start. The numbers in parentheses are homicide rates—number of homicides per 100,000 residents.
(Full disclosure! In 1991 and the like, we often walked to our car, late at night, after performing at the Washington Improv. On Saturday nights, we sometimes made double trips, after midnight, lugging cartons of objets. We don't remember ever thinking about the very high homicide rates; in fact, we don't think we ever did. We offer this as a way to put some of the more hysterical claims you might have heard about "roving gangs" into a type of context.)
Today, Washington's homicide rate seems to be less than one-third what it was back then. (It's still very high compared to homicide rates in other developed countries.) As with other cities, Washington's numbers are recovering from what happened in the Covid years. In most of the cities presented here, the homicide numbers are currently down again from where they were last year.
What about the nation's three biggest cities? Unless you're watching the Fox News Channel, where Gotham is persistently pictured as a dystopian hellhole, New York City has enjoyed the most striking statistical change. We'll offer homicide rates where Wikipedia does:
New York City homicides:
1991: 2,154
1992: 1,995
1993: 1,946
1994: 1,561
[...]
2022: 436
2023: 391
2024: 377
Los Angeles homicides:
1991: 1,025
1992: 1,092
1993: 1,077
1994: 850
[...]
2022: 382
2023: 327
2024: 280
Chicago homicides:
1991: 929 (33.3)
1992: 948
1993: 867
1994: 932
[...]
2022: 715
2023: 621
2024: 581 (21.4)
In New York City and L.A., the numbers are way down—unless you watch the Fox News Channel, where the various messengers routinely swear that they're barely able to fight their way to the studio.
The president may be coming to Baltimore. Forty miles north of D.C., here's how our numbers look:
Baltimore homicides:
1991: 304 (40.6)
1992: 335
1993: 353
1994: 321
[...]
2022: 333
2023: 261
2024: 201 (34.3)
Way up the coast, there's Boston! For whatever reason, there were 47 homicides there in 1991, 24 last year.
There you see a bunch of reasonably accurate statistical facts. We have more to suggest about the way these homicide numbers are being debated. For now, we leave you with a warning:
At present, facts play almost zero role in the American "discourse!" As our warring tribes war on, the facts you may occasionally hear tend to be what we make them.
Now show us the rates, per 100,000 residents, in Republican-voting rural areas.
ReplyDeleteSomerby also cheats repeating the bullshit about "It's still very high compared to homicide rates in other developed countries," and omits data of higher murder rates in red state cities. Jeez, maybe 80% of folks in other countries don't have a fucking pistol in their glovebox. I mean come on man, this country is fucking nuts with guns.
DeleteBe careful blaming the Republican Party for gun violence. They're the party which plans to disarm the citizens.
DeleteI didn't blame Republicans. Plenty of gun humpers on the left. Weirdos, the whole lot of them.
DeleteWhat percentage of men elected to president have been convicted of 34 felonies? Does that experience provide a unique qualification for dealing with crime? Why is Trump avoiding the job of president while trying to take over the jobs of mayors and police chiefs in blue cities? If troops reduce murders are we prepared to become a police state in exchange for lower crime, given that we can use other methods (ss shown by Somerby’s decreases)? And if we don’t want the military around in our cities, why are they there (against the wishes of govs & mayors who never asked for them)?
ReplyDeleteThese are all good and obvious questions that persons who don't want to wake up and find they are living in East Germany (1962) or North Korea (the president greatly admires Kim Jong-un). Unfortunately we are well on our way, because there are a lot of people in this country who don't object to fascism.
DeleteThose are not real felonies though. Those were the results of partisan lawfare.
DeleteYou can't charge someone with a crime, if they are running for election.
DeleteThat's just science.
The crimes that became his multiple felonies weren't really crimes. They were legal inventions by partisan lawmakers. The whole world knows this. You know it. I know it. Everyone and their dog knows it.
Delete(That's why you come across as a tiny bit disingenuous when you use the term felon like it was real felonies.)
DeleteLet's just call him a "sexual predator", like he admitted.
DeleteThey were real felonies. A judge and jury (with some Trump supporters on it) considered his crimes real and convicted him under our laws. No one is above the law.
DeleteJesus you fucking weirdos. The orange is a grimy, greasy, white collar scumbag. He reminds me of my ex multi millionaire boss who hired me to work part time. He asked how much do I plan to work in terms of dollars. I said $40k. He said that ain't enough money to pay income taxes, and if it looks like I am just give him a call and he'd teach me how to write off enough to cover. Plus you will make so "little" you don't deserve to be punished. So little at the time was about the average annual full time salary in the US. A bunch of preachy, prissy pious fucks who are greasy as fuck and don't think their shit stinks. Republicans
DeleteFor like the 100th time Trump convened his cabinet who literally licked his balls on fucking TV for fucking three fucking hours yesterday. One would think even someone infected with TCD (Trump Cult Derangement) would think this is very fucking weird and gross. What is wrong with you cultists? And don't get me started on the rambling nonsense done come out those idiots mouths.
DeleteConsider two Presidential approaches to crime in DC
ReplyDelete1) Ignore the problem
2) Say that crime is unacceptably high and do something about it.
One could debate these two approaches. Instead Bob quibbles about exaggerations. in the statement.
(1) wasn't happening.
Delete(2) didn't happen.
You live in a made up universe, David. You start with a faulty predicate and jump to ludicrous conclusions from that predicate.
To hark back to an old Irish comedian, Dave Allen, whose show I used to watch on PBS: you're like blindfolded man, in a totally dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there -- and, by golly! -- You have found it!
What did President Biden say and do about DC crime?
DeleteHe didn't break the law and bring in 14 ton MRAPs you fascist fuckhead.
DeleteWhat did President Biden say and do about DC crime?
DeleteMurders dropped dramatically in 2024. The fact of the matter, there's no intervention that a president can do to affect crime. There are long-term policy decisions that can have an effect. Perhaps, eliminating lead in gasoline was one of those policies.
7:06,
DeleteBingo.
Hitler didn't ignore the "Jewish problem". Those were his predecessors that let it get so out of hand.
Consider two DiC approaches to crime in DC
Delete1. Ultimately counterproductive.
2. Illegal.
It's like the immigration situation.
DeleteUltimately, you can (1) streamline immigration, make it easier for people who want to come to this country to do so, and hire enough immigration judges to reduce the severe backlog, or (2) you can blame immigrants for your problems, and mistreat them because that is what you were elected to do.
Factual evaluations of government programs seem to matter only when it's Trump's program. For other programs, there's seldom a cost/benefit analysis. Instead. there are many programs where the government gives out money for something simply claimed to be a good cause.
ReplyDeleteE.g., School lunch. Has anyone tried to find out how much hunger is prevented by this program? They do know how much food is being delivered. But without School Lunch, how much of the hunger would be prevented in some other way? Has anyone tried to analyze how many parents today would give their children adequate amounts of food without this program? Has anyone tried to analyze how Food Stamps reduced the need for the School Lunch program? Or, how rising prosperity has severely reduced hunger among the general population?
Trump's National Guard program is analyzed to death. Statistics (many of them unreliable) are advanced that supposedly showed it wasn't needed. Now that it's clearly working, the complaint is raised that it may not have a lasting benefit. Of course, nobody knows how much lasting benefit there will be.
IMO part of the difference is local selfishness. School Lunch Program gives money to various local government and education institutions. No wonder they like it. OTOH bringing in the National Guard gives no money to local institutions. It merely reduces crime.
"Of course, nobody knows how much lasting benefit there will be."
DeleteWhy would there be any lasting benefit?
"Has anyone tried to find out how much hunger is prevented by this program...."
DeleteTo see how effective the School Lunch program is, you would have to ask Google something like, "How effective is the School Lunch program?
You get this AI Overview:
"Evaluations of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) consistently show it provides vital nutrition for children, reducing food insecurity and improving dietary intake of essential nutrients, fruits, and vegetables. While research suggests links between participation in these programs and improved academic performance, reduced discipline problems, and lower obesity rates, the evidence certainty varies across studies and specific outcomes. Implementation of universal free school meals is associated with increased meal participation, potentially enhanced attendance, and decreased obesity and suspensions, but more research is needed to establish consistent evidence."
To evaluate the program at the greater level of detail in some of your questions would be expensive. In addition, the staff qualified to do such evaluations have no doubt been let go by the Trump/DOGE regime.
Ironic, huh?
Speaking of irony the CDC experts studying causes of autism have been removed by the regime and brain worm is going to tell us the real dope on its causes. Voodoo cursed infants. Idiocracy has arrived.
DeleteJesus your David, are not just an idiot, but a cruel one as well. You are the nastiest Jew I have ever read/spoke to.
DeleteYes @9:30, I expected tat reaction. I expect many people agree with you. Feeding hungry children is such an obviously good thing to do that it’s immoral to do a study that might oppose it.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeleteAre you sure you want to do a study about the benefits of a 100% Estate Tax rate.
I know you don't care about the deficit, but there must be somebody out there who does.
Factual evaluations of government programs only seem to matter under Trump, dumbass, because Trump engages in activities predicated on lies he propagates. When Trump sends the National Guard to a city claiming its crime rate is at an all time high, someone (not you, of course) who has kept count of the amount of bullshit that has emanated from his pie hole naturally will ask the question “Isn’t that a fucking lie?” . And then , as Somerby has shown here, utilizing the tools available in The Age of Information, the claims made can be debunked. Another example: Texas crime statistics, compiled by Texas, not the reviled FBI, show that for each and every year under Biden crime in Texas went down. This naturally raises the question : is Trump lying about these people crossing the border in record numbers in order to outrage rubes like DiC? Are they not substantially comprised of hardened criminals? A thoughtful person would consider the implications of this fact: that record numbers of border crossings in Texas occurred during the same years in which crime in Texas went down. Or, as with DiC and his ilk, pretend that such a discrepancy does not exist, in order to believe the racist bullshit propagated by their chosen leader. Pathetic.
DeleteThe one and only time Trump had due cause for deploying the National Guard to prevent crime in DC was, of course, on January 6th, but he was too busy jacking off in front of his TV, cheering on the insurrection he fomented with his lies about an election he lost. Had he done this in a timely manner, Ashli Babbitt might not have become the martyr for a bunch of lawless clowns.
DeleteLet's not sell Trump short. He was jacking off over the insurrection, because they were protesting the counting of black people's votes in the 2020 Presidential Election.
DeleteFuck you David and similar idiots. In the way back time before fascists destroyed America all bills were scored by various professionals like the independent CBO and experts study and recommend changes/tweaks over time. But I gotta say of all the stupid senseless sick shit this nasty fuck DiC has come up with, questioning the cost benefit analysis of fucking feeding children is probably the grossest. Even a moron like DiC knows an undernourished child will develop cognitive issues and will be unable to focus on studies. They end up impoverished living in poverty where they turn to drugs, alcohol, and thievery; where idiot DiC's solution is to smack them down with the military. David in California takes joy in harming children's lives.
DeleteDavid in Cal makes a good point. If those ovens really were for burning Jews, why did they have door handles on the inside, as has been reported?
DeleteI’ve had enough of David.
DeleteThey studied the rocks and dirt at Auschwitz, and found no traces of toxic chemicals/ gases.
DeleteDavid in Cal is right to be questioning the narrative.
The Holocaust is a Democrat myth.
Delete"Dissident voices, like Nick Fuentes, belong in conservative politics."
DeletePaul Ingrassia, Trump White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security
Bleeding heart liberals will fall for any hoax.
DeletePutting aside Trump's authority to fire Lisa Cook, if she is shown to have committed mortgage fraud, shouldn't she resign?
ReplyDeleteAre you fucking serious?
DeleteCompletely.
DeleteHector, what's the difference between principal and primary residence? Can two residences be called principal? Was there any fraud? Missed payments? Anyone harmed? How have three of the felon's critics all been accused of the same bullshit fine print crime with no legal foundation? You good with the felon targeting critics without due process? The orange clown who has cheated on everthing he touched? Your smarter than falling for their unfounded political attacks. This one could well destroy the full faith and credit of the US. No biggie.
DeleteIf you want to root out corruption in politics, you can't make excuses for it when it's made public.
DeleteAnd I can't help point out the parallels between Cook's case (if she did what she's accused of) and Trump's New York civil case in which he lied on bank loan applications to get more favorable rates.
A governor of the Federal Reserve should be able to state her primary residence on a mortgage application, and if she's unclear on the question, she should seek guidance.
And if she lied to get a lower rate, she should resign. That goes for Schiff and Letitia James. The Republic will manage without them.
Doesn't sound like a denial of the accusation.
Last sentence of 9:55 comment should have been deleted.
DeleteWhat the fuck evidence is there that there was a lie to get a lower rate? Something the orange turd shat out his piehole?
DeleteHector - You must be somewhat concerned about the selective prosecution, right?
DeleteWhat concerns are there about the selective prosecution?
DeleteHector,
DeleteAs is spelled out in the United States Constitution, she should run for political office and let the voters decide if she committed crimes.
Once again with this billionaire run country, no due process. Fraudster in chief ain't supposed to be able to make up charges. What the actual fuck wrong with you?
DeleteLet's talk more about selective prosecutions. Should we be somewhat concerned about them? After all, we don't want the rule of law to fall by the wayside now, do we?
DeleteThat horse left the barn.
DeleteNow, what are you going to do about it?
Lisa Cook has been accused of bank loan application fraud by a serial liar. That is the only fact about this case that can be stated confidently.
DeleteRe-read my comments. I'm not saying she should be prosecuted.
DeleteI'm saying, if guilty, as she appears to be, she should resign. She should have some sense of shame that she was caught lying on a loan application to get a lower rate. She should have more respect for the office she holds.
And I say she appears guilty because of the carefully worded statement she released:
"President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law"
That doesn't sound like 'I'm innocent.'
If Democrats became known as the party that didn't tolerate fraudsters in office, we might actually get more votes.
You’re being ridiculous, Hector. If she is removed for some specious reason, she will be replaced by a Trump toady who will likely be incompetent as well as a criminal. You and Democrats shouldn’t allow Trump a criminal himself to use pretextual reasons like this. Maybe you can comfort yourself along with the rest of the Democrats when we are a dictatorship that “well, at least we went along with Trump’s abuses because we’re so pure.”
Delete8:43 : If she is replaced by Trump, the majority of Fed governors will then be Trump appointees (there is another opening to be filled by him ,created by the resignation of another governor). That, coupled with replacement of Powell next year will substantially raise the likelihood that the Fed will no longer act as an independent body. Given Trump’s mental status currently coupled with his track record as a financial genius, this is dangerous.
Delete'Maybe you can comfort yourself along with the rest of the Democrats when we are a dictatorship that “well, at least we went along with Trump’s abuses because we’re so pure.”'
DeleteAs it's now playing out, the Lisa Cook issue is a winner for Trump, and hence advances his push to dictatorship.
MAGA says, 'She committed mortgage fraud', which it doesn't seem like she is able to deny. The Dem response comes down to: 'President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law.'
The MAGA argument is more binary, more concrete, hence more of a winner, hence benefits Trump.
MAGA says a lot of bullshit. If you want to buy into that as a winning play, good for you. She will have her day in court. Accepting the appraisal of a serial liar for fact? By all means, if that’s your inclination.
DeleteHow thins have changed. Years ago, great tennis player Arthur Ashe's coach told the (black) team to bend over backwards when calling their opponent's shots. The coach told them to call shots in if they were out by 2 inches or less. Today, Lisa Cook bends over backwards to keep her job, when she probably ought to resign.
DeleteHector,
DeleteImpossible.
The Right has been criticizing the Left for caring about feelings, not facts, for decades.
How could the Right possibly believe that "feeling that Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud" could possibly be more important than the facts around whether Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud?
That doesn't make any sense, when you take the Right's claims at face value.
The Republican Party is now trying to distract from the fact that they are a global pedophile ring, by pretending to care about mortgage fraud.
DeleteThese people are truly shameless.
In defending Lisa Cook, Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, specifically pointed to Cook as being the “first black woman” ever to serve on the Fed’s governing body." In Ashe's day, being black would make one more likely to be accused of misbehavior. Today, being black seems to be a defense against a charge of misbehavior.
DeleteArthur Ashe is way older than Lisa Cook. Ashe played for UCLA which did not have a “black tennis team.” Even the LA and Beverly Hills Tennis Clubs were not segregated. But that does sound like the kind of anecdote racists share. You don’t get a phd by distorting reality as David suggests. The anecdotes black people tell are about having to be twice as good in order to be taken seriously.
DeleteAshe played tennis in high school.
DeleteDavid, how can you say that in the midst of a DEI purge where top officials and high achieving staff ate being fired for being black or female or both!
DeleteThey were hired for being black or female, rather than merit. That's being rectified
DeleteThat is a lie. They were hired because they were qualified by merit.
DeleteHere is the actual Ashe story. He was taught, as a matter of sportsmanship:
“He was told to return every ball that landed within two inches of a line and never to argue with an umpire's decision.”
That is not the same as calling out balls in because he was black. It means you don’t make a fuss over close calls to gain an advantage not won by skill. It has nothing to do with race.
Ashe did not play on a black team in high school. He was coached by famous black athletes because of his talent.
Here is an article about a National Security expert who is questioning Trump’s mental fitness to be president. Somerby says that doesn’t happen, but here it is:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.rawstory.com/trump-mental-decline-2673923797/
You mean that a 79 year old going on a tweeting rampage threatening a late night host at 2 AM is not engaging in normal behavior?
DeleteSeems like pretty normal behavior for a child raping Adderall addict to me. Though YMMV.
DeleteHear! Hear!
DeleteTrump hits his highest approval ever in an AP Poll (AP-NORC).
ReplyDeleteNow show us carjackings, rape, assault, other violent crime in DC.
ReplyDelete