The politics of hoodie wearing

I suspect that a 1% difference in the level of urbanization isn't a factor.

Now it could be that the U.S. does have a higher rate of crime in its urban areas. I'm sure someone has researched that.

That would be interesting as Canada's large cities are well on the way to having non-visible minorities as the majority.

Has anyone looked at the poverty rates and education levels (avg years of completion) between Canada and US. It's an assumption on my part, but I've always felt that the education system in Canada was better than ours and (also guessing) that the poverty rate is lower.

Wait.....

The access to health care is different.

I've just read that crime rates are higher in rural areas in Canada than they are in the urban centers, on average of .4 %.
Edmonton lead the bigger cities this year with a banner year on murder. It nearly doubled. We've always had a high murder rate, this year's numbers were staggering.. 48. Calgary - similar demographics had 6. This city has always been a bit more rough and tumble but last year was unbelievable. Unemployment is at 4.6 and there is money all over town. This year, so far we're at 3, fingers crossed...I've often heard Austin is much like Edmonton. Similar vibe, size and so on. Edmonton's murder rate per 100,000 is 3.1, Autin's 4.8 in 2011.
The crime rate is Canada has steadily fallen since the seventies, about 10% per annum. I think the US has similar stats, especially in certain areas. Some crimes aren't considered especially heinous in Canada either, soft drug usage and so on. So, crime comparisons aren't exactly on the same page.
As for education, I know that teachers are paid better and have enviable plans. Basic health care is covered. We have problems with poverty and homelessness, just like every where else.

I didn't really ask the question to compare countries. We both have our own problems. We've recently gone through, what seems like endless royal commissions on RCMP and Police screw ups, on some really high profile cases. We have an epidemic of murders on Native women and very few of their murders have been solved, partially because of disinterest. I get the feeling this is what the pastor was getting at. If nobody gives a damn, then it's situation normal. At what point do people sit down and find the answers and stop pointing fingers. Instead of making laws that are bound and determined to kill people, why don't they get to the root of the fear.
Many of the aboriginal women that have been murdered were living off the avails of the street. Ontario has just made brothels legal. Prostitution laws are changing because, although many would rather turn a blind eye to the sin... and the problems, many people realize that these laws were endangering these women. Laws that made serial killers jobs so much easier.
So, the Pastor said there is an epidemic of young black men dying, being murdered. If it were white boys, there would be outrage. Maybe it's time for a paradigm switcheroo...

Cute - if you're liberal and prefer to side-step the issue under discussion. I have to laugh. If we are all "socially adjudicated" per Census Bureau standards - this little whine would be relevant. But, we aren't - and you know it.

Zimmerman is a person of color, and has likely met with treatment based on that. Why pretend he's white? Just one good answer instead of wiggling all over the place trying to deny it...

I think political wrangling to attempt to racially divide our country and our communities is beneath us. This is the lowest form of political spin that exists in our country. An event occurs and the spin doctors start working immediately to either capitalize or deflect responsibility.

Ask yourself why you (the genera l"you" who fit the question) are invested in tagging this guy as white. Why are Democrats spinning this kid's murder? Why use it to divide a country that has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it is valiantly moving forward ? Both parties spin. It happens. I am just calling it what it is and utterly rejecting it - and those who feed off it.

Thanks for obvious even-handed article from that bastion of logic, salon....

No.. he is a person of ethnicity and has likely met with treatment based on that.


Based on your argument, the Irish aren't white and were discriminated against based on their race.

You bet ! ! !

Us white boys has a tough row to hoe . . .

I should clarify my use of the word liberal. I should have said Democrat hyper-partisan.

History shows that was the case.

History shows what? That the Irish aren't Caucasian?

I should let you on to the fact that these dated monikers to describe race (caucasian, mongoloid and negroid) have become obsolete, and are sometimes considered derogatory...

especially when used to create political capital from a young man's murder.

Why don't you check your motive.

No matter his color, he can still be a racist.

It's his attitudes that matter, not how he's been treated himself.

http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2005-027.pdf

It seems the law was primarily written to protect people from defending themselves in their homes or vehicles from attack. I don't think the law should be stricken. I think prosecutors should prevail. "[w]here they have a right to be" is key. Zimmerman was told to stop pursuing. The spirit of the law was not to cloak something like this. Hoping the letter of the law supports it.

Of course, I agree. One man's racism (and likely mental issues) is just that. If the one guy is Hispanic, why does a large segment of this country (and some people here) want to refer to him as white? It is intentionally damaging to gains made in racial relations in our country - and politically expedient to one political party. I think that's very wrong. It's needlessly polarizing.

That's hilarious, Lash, that you think a liberal is someone who is a Democrat.

As you well know, the eternal talking-point-tug-of-war in our media is between hyper-partisan-Democrats and -Republicans. Anyone more "liberal," as the term is defined in American politics, doesn't seem to have enough support in either the ballot box or the media to join the fray.

Oh... those dated things like facts too?

You confuse race with ethnicity then attack anyone that tries to correct you with what is the proper usage. You are free to claim he is Hispanic all you want. That would be correct. However it is NOT correct to call him "colored" when he is actually white. As a hispanic he is an ethnic minority. However that doesn't make him a racial minority just as your being a woman doesn't make you a racial minority even though you would be considered a minority for several legal purposes.

Just for the record not Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, the Democrats (big or small 'd'), liberals, black people, race-baiters, or ANYONE else introduced race into the story and discussion of Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman calling Trayvon a "fuckin' coon" on TAPE, and having a history of only being suspicious of young black people is what introduced it.

If ANYONE is trying to "wiggle out" of ANYTHING about this case, it's the people who are trying to act like ANYONE or ANYTHING else was the catalyst for race being central in this case.

That a guy is dead, most probably unjustifiably so, is the central issue in this case. You guys who are going on and on about race are mostly just stroking yourselves....

Try to follow along, nimrod...
Trayvon's shooting is THE central issue in this case. Race is an issue that is central to this case. Like vigilanteism(sp?). Like the Stand Your Ground law.